Tornado Reveals Child Porn Cache - CNN

[Almost_there]

Tornado reveals child porn cache

FREDERICK, Maryland (AP) -- Workers repairing a home damaged in a tornado discovered nearly two dozen boxes filled with child pornography. The homeowner remained jailed Monday on $96,000 bail.

Robert L. Medvee, 52, was charged Friday with 48 counts of creating computer images of child pornography and 48 counts of possession of child pornography, sheriff's Deputy Jennifer Bailey said.

The seized material -- computer discs, videotapes and photographs -- filled 20 to 24 boxes, Frederick County State's Attorney Scott Rolle said.

"It was the largest seizure of child pornography I've ever seen," Rolle said. "We had to bring in a pickup truck to get all of it out of there."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/04/tornado.porn.ap/index.html

<snip>

They needed a pickup truck for this guys child porn collection? People like this need so much help, yet, at the same time, I can't advocate him ever coming back and being a useful member of society. What sort of damage has been done to the children in this case? It just makes my stomach turn.

~Almost

[Infomaniac]

1. Sick F*^k eom

[slojim240]

51. Frederick Maryland, a hot bed of red-neck, pro-RW-Bush supporters

Double lives, double barrels, double standards, double lies. These are the bulk of Bush supporters.

[sonicx]

2. damn...

[Reciprocity]

3. One more .

These monsters should have their genitals bit off my a Doberman.

Church janitor's tapes reveal child molestation
Monday, October 4, 2004

GARDEN CITY, Michigan (AP) -- A janitor whose body was found in the church where he worked had hundreds of illegal videotapes in his home, some depicting the man molesting children in the church restroom, police said.

snip
The body of Todd Darow, 40, was discovered September 23 in Merriman Road Baptist Church where he worked part-time, but investigators said there was no sign of foul play. When police went to inform Darow's wife, they saw illegal pornography inside the house.

Returning with a search warrant, police said they found the videos, many of them self-produced and showing Darow improperly touching children in his home and in a church bathroom.

for more
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/10/04/janitor.tapes.ap/

[Almost_there]

4. Big news day for sickos out there, huh?

I saw the janitor at work, and I cringed, thinking again about the lives ruined because of these peoples sickness. I hate to admit it, but, these are the times when I think that the death penalty might just come in handy. Or even just let them loose in general prison population and let Darwin's theories come to fruition.

I saw the church mentioned on the janitor's case, but, it looks to be a Baptist Church, I guess the Catholics have learned how to keep their mess tightly under wraps. The others will have to learn from them on how to do a cover up.

~Almost

[MARALE]

23. Okay, this part got to me

When police went to inform Darow's wife, they saw illegal pornography inside the house.

If they found it just going to tell his wife,why would she let it be out in the open like that? If she knew, would it be hidden before she answered the door? I bet that she killed him and they are covering it up for her or something. It seems really fishy.

[hippiechick]

49. self delete

wrong link, sorry


:hippie:

[cosmicone]

5. I bet the guy is a "family values" freeper ... n/t

[GoddessOfGuinness]

8. That area of MD is pretty solidly

pro-rethuglican and a holyroller rink.

[Seabiscuit]

39. Yup. Scrach a baptist fundie and...

you uncover a truckload of child porn.

Friggin' evil hypocrites.

[mrbassman03]

59. "If they are old enough to pee, they are old enough for me...", sicko...

[Noxmtbnk]

6. Wow...

This is like the scene from Donnie Darko....

[belle]

12. I was just thinking that...

[phrenzy]

58. First thing I thought of..

that was the first thing i thought of when i read that.

Patrick Swayze anyone?

[SKKY]

7. Sorry to say this folks, but in my opinion...

...he's not worth the upkeep- fry 'em.

[3113]

11. You do the math

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons the cost per inmate was $21,000 in 2003, but varies from state to state plus or minus.

The average cost of a capital punishment case is $2.13 million, whether found guilty or innocent. Don't know what the average costs would be if you only included those found guilty. Could it be $4-5 million.

Like I said, you do the math. Obviously, dollars is no rationale for the death penalty. What does that leave, revenge?

[Radius]

43. Works for me

I've heard shit that would make the most anti-death penalty person kill a person with an axe.

Some of these folks are inhuman and deserve to die.

Don't forget who pays the bill when he gets hep3 and aids in prison.

Fuck em. Walking organ donor as far as I'm concerned.

[3113]

75. As I said, cost is no rationale for the death penalty

I was simply pointing out that the perception of saving money as a rationale for the death penalty versus life in prison is not accurate.

As far as punishment, given the choice of execution or life in prison, I would day shoot me.

I find it ludicrous that when somone on death row appears suicidal they are put on a suicide watch. What in the hell is up with that? God forbid they kill themselves. Nooo, let's keep them alive through ten years of appeals, costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars, so we can feel warm and fuzzy.

After years in prison awaiting execution, who would want their organs, all tainted with hep3 and aids?

[absolutezero]

9. this is one of those extreme cases

when the death penalty is more than warranted

[ugarte]

10. It doesn't say he molested anybody

He's charged with possession. You want to execute him for that?

[Senior citizen]

13. Yes.

This wasn't a hobby. He had a commercial operation going with that much stuff. So you have to think about the harm he caused.

But I'm a fanatic about this stuff. I even want to do away with the California "incest exception" that lets child molesters off the hook if it was their own child. I think kids are people and molestation can wreck their lives.

I don't like living in a police state. I don't like the growth of the prison industry. There are so many child molesters and kiddy porn addicts in this country, that if you locked them all up you'd have to build thousands of new prisons. I say put 'em to sleep as humanely as possible, just don't let 'em live. It may not be a deterrent to others, but it sure is to the ones you fry.

Besides which, the vast majority of 'em are pukes. We'd never have to worry about close elections again.

Maybe it doesn't sound like a very liberal attitude to you, but I think the place of government is to protect the weak and vulnerable from predators. So I favor a policy of, "Pick on somebody your own size -- or DIE!" If we're ever going to call ourselves civilized (as opposed to uncivilized, law of the jungle, dog eat dog, etc.) that's where we have to start.

See I have this theory that the problem with the world is that early human societies had so much respect for life that they didn't have a death penalty. So they either imprisoned offenders (some of whom escaped), or exiled them, thus enabling the evildoers to band together into warrior gangs with no respect for life whatsoever, who eventually took over the world.

I figure that if you REALLY want to have respect for life, you have to either kill off those who don't, or else keep them isolated from society and from each other for life, and killing 'em is cheaper and more effective.

And to me life means women and kids. Without them life doesn't have a future. So while I oppose the death penalty for everything else, I favor it for rapists, child molesters and war criminals. My best friend says I'm wrong, but that's the truth of how I feel so flame away.

[ima_sinnic]

17. yes, I agree--just get rid of 'em

... there are certain people who just have no place in society, who for the general good need to be eliminated. Obsessive predation on children puts the whole civilization at risk.

[Mad_Dem_X]

20. I'm with you - child molesters and rapists should be

executed. That's one of the (very few) things I agree with conservatives on. Anyone who forces sex on a child (or anyone) should face the most severe punishment.

Just my two cents...

[St. Jarvitude]

46. That "incest exception" actually EXISTS?

That is one of the most depraved, reckless, most disgusting laws I've ever heard of. They actually let you off the hook - not punish you equally or MORE SO - for molesting your OWN CHILD????!!? :wtf:

[Senior citizen]

48. Yes, the incest exception actually exists.

Wicket posted a link to an organization fighting it, but I'll repost:

http://www.protect.org

Sometimes, when I'm wearing my tinfoil hat, I wonder if "family values" isn't a code phrase for the incest exception. Naw.....couldn't be......or could it?

Well, if Protect succeeds in getting legislation introduced to eliminate the incest exception, or initiates litigation to have it struck down, we'll see who stands up to defend it. Then we'll know.

[Character Assassin]

50. No, not necessarily, and where are you getting your info?

This wasn't a hobby. He had a commercial operation going with that much stuff.

Kiddie porn types tend to be utterly obsessed, and they usually, to my experience, and given enough time, will build up quite sizable collections.

If he were doing this commercially, he would have been charged with a MUCH more serious 'intent to distribute' statute.

There are so many child molesters and kiddy porn addicts in this country, that if you locked them all up you'd have to build thousands of new prisons.

Please support your statement. I find that so absurdly exaggerated as to equate it with the 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' loonies.

Besides which, the vast majority of 'em are pukes.

Please support your statement.

I figure that if you REALLY want to have respect for life, you have to either kill off those who don't, or else keep them isolated from society and from each other for life, and killing 'em is cheaper and more effective.

In order to save the village, we had to destroy the village.

Ok. Sure. You bet.

[Senior citizen]

57. I admit that I'm not an expert,

but I have read several books and seen a few TV shows on this subject.

You are correct that kiddy porn types tend to be quite obsessed. However experts say that in order to amass their sizeable collections, they have to trade. For example, they can access a kiddy porn site and download some pictures, but after they've done that, when they want more, they'll be told that they have to supply some similar pictures in return before they'll be permitted to have more.

Although he hasn't been charged with intent to distribute, it does not mean that he won't be. If further investigation shows that he got that sizeable collection without contributing anything in return, or perhaps by just contributing something legal, like money, he won't be charged with intent to distribute. We'll have to wait and see.

As for the numbers of child molesters, the FBI has said that kiddy porn sites get millions of hits a day. While you may think that this could be the result of a few obsessives hitting the same sites millions of times daily, the FBI disagrees.

As for my statement that the vast majority of them are pukes, others have said the exact same thing in this thread, so why don't you go challenge them to support their statements? Quite a few people seem to be challenging me simultaneously. Probably just a coincidence, of course. There have, however, been several DU threads with lists of high-level pukes who have been convicted of child molestation. Another coincidence, right?

As for destroying the village to save the village, you're probably trying to say that someone who kills a genocidal maniac bent on ethnic cleansing, is as guilty of murder as the maniac. I disagree. I believe that when there is a cancer in society, sometimes radical intervention is necessary. Dr. Albert Schweitzer had such great respect for life that he lamented having to kill colonies of bacteria in order to cure his patients of their life-threatening infections. But he did it.

[Elginoid]

54. Either you support the Death Penalty or you don't. I Don't.

when you start maing exceptions- it means that you support the death penalty.
you say rapists, child molesters, and war criminals...
what about serial killers who torture their victims but never rape them?
what about someone who pours gasoline on homeless people and sets them on fire?

etc., etc., etc...

my answer will always be the same- put them away for life with no parole, but don't execute them.

BTW- why wouldn't you consider something like castration(actual, not chemical) before the death penalty?

[Senior citizen]

60. Then I guess I support the death penalty.

I'm opposed to it as it is now. Currently it is skewed so that people of color are much more likely to get the death penalty than whites, for the exact same crimes. And we have executed innocent people. Plus the appeals process is something out of Kafka. You can only appeal based on what is on the trial record, so if you discover proof that someone is innocent later on, that fact cannot be the basis of an appeal. It can be the basis for a pardon, but not an appeal. If actual proof of that someone is innocent has no standing in court, something is VERY wrong with our judicial system.

I would not consider castration because some sex offenders who have been castrated in the past have continued to perpetrate their crimes using objects. Someone who enjoys hurting others doesn't need to be physically intact in order to do so.

There are people who believe they are superior to others, and that their superiority gives them the right to use others as they wish. Some males actually believe that their wives and children are chattels which they own and can use as they see fit. Some parents are arrogant enough to think that in molesting their kids they are merely teaching insolent children to behave properly and demonstrate the proper respect that they, as parents, deserve. When I was a child I had an authoritarian, dominating mother. I was institutionalized when I was young, and whenever my mother visited we would argue and I would be upset for days afterwards. The doctors insisted that it had to be at least partly my fault, so I requested that the next time my mother visited, they have an attendant in the room to take notes. My mother naturally assumed that the attendant was there to observe my behavior only, and proceeded to harangue me. I held my tongue as long as I could, but after one particularly unreasonable demand I blurted out, "Who do you think you are, God?" My mother calmly replied, "The parent is the God-substitute for the child." The attendant wrote it down verbatim, and I was told that I didn't have to submit to parental visits after that. Power corrupts and it is easy to abuse the power a parent has over a child. The proper use of a parent's power is to protect the child, not to abuse it.

I would definitely favor the death penalty for serial killers and torturers. Anyone who has no respect for life and enjoys causing pain and suffering to others, has shown that they do not deserve to live. If we could empty our prisons of all nonviolent offenders, however, it might be possible to keep people who cannot be rehabilitated (they are convinced that they are already perfect and a lot better and smarter than anyone else) in jail for the rest of their lives. But our prisons aren't like those in Scandinavia. Our prisons are nothing but "graduate school" for criminals and a waste of money for us. IMO.

[DrWeird]

64. So you don't have a real problem with executing innocent people?

I myself am not against the death penalty in theory. But I'm for the moratorium as there's obviously a racial bias, and an economic bias, and executing an innocent person is tantamount to murder. I'm likewise against the DP for child molestation for the same reasons, particularly with child molestations there are a lot of witch hunts which lead to false convictions.

[Senior citizen]

66. Of course I oppose executing innocent people--and I said so in this thread

I specifically said that I had reservations against the death penalty because, among the other things you cited, we have been known to execute innocent people. It might help if you looked at the thread before posting.

As for the witch hunts and false convictions, I admit that there have been some. But there are a lot more instances of child molesters not being penalized because the child is afraid to testify, the parents won't let the child testify, or the judge or jury doesn't believe the child, as has been noted elsewhere in this thread. Child molesters are sophisticated. If you look at some of the lists of high-level pukes who have been convicted of child-molestation in the past, you'll see Senators among them. Child molestation rings have been known to dress up in costumes to molest children so that later on, when the kids claim that they were hurt by cartoon characters, nobody will take them seriously. The easiest type of case to prove is when the child becomes infected with an STD and it can be matched via DNA to the STD infecting the perp. In such cases convictions can be obtained without regard to the social status and apparent credibility of the pedophile or the confusion of the victim. I believe that it was just such a case involving an infant, which he came upon early in his career, that led Andrew Vachhs to devote the rest of his life to protecting children.

http://www.protect.org

[gatlingforme]

14. Every child that was photographed was MOLESTED. Every child

was violated and HE violated them.... That is child pornography -- it's not just about "pictures".

[rooboy]

15. And guess what...

every one of those children who was MOLESTED becomes a prime candidate for being a MOLESTER. So when a molested child starts molesting, at what age do you stop treating them like a victim and start executing them?

There are some hard core pedarists who need to be locked away permanently because they are dangerous and can't be cured. In fact, they are the worst of the worst because they have no shame at all. But amongst these people there are many who are untreated victims and can be helped.

Nobody's saying that these people should be allowed to roam free with their disorder, but burning them at the stake doesn't solve the problem. It's a cycle that needs to be broken.

Having been molested myself, I am constantly grateful that I grew up normal. But not everyone does.

[gatlingforme]

16. That is a good point. But, how do you know if one is rehabilitated?

That is what is being deliberated among many right now, Many people have trepidations about this topic. I am sorry to hear this has happened to you. I am glad you are at some peace with what had happened to you. (If I can even say that?) How can one predict a pederast can be rehabilitated, it's predicting the future and many people would rather be on the safe side. I am not saying kill them all but how can one "measure" the stability of a child molester?

Peace to you. Sorry that happened.

[molly]

19. Go find the stats - they cannot be rehabilitated

[noonwitch]

24. If you catch them young, they sometimes can be rehabilitated

And I mean young like 14 or 15. A good treatment program will work to help them develop healthier views of sexuality and change the images they get off on.

[wicket]

21. normal

I'm glad I turned out normal too, but it breaks my heart to see how many people there really are out there that had this happen to them :( Most people who were molested do not turn out to be molesters, but perpertrators almost always were abused once themselves. It's a vicious, sickening cycle, and it needs to stop.

If anyone is interested in helping to put an end to this, please check out PROTECT - http://www.protect.org/

[Southpaw Bookworm]

22. He may not have molested them

But someone did, in order to meet the demand for this shit. A child was still destroyed in the making of that product.

[Mizmoon]

18. What I want to know is

where are these children's parents? The first line of defense is always the parents, the human beings who are responsible for the child's well-being. There are certainly times when their parents could not know what was happening, like in a school situation, but it's pretty clear now that church is not a safe place for youngsters. I wouldn't leave my child alone with a church worker of any kind - not even for five minutes.

Second, the death penalty is ridiculous, even in a vile, repulsive case like this. They should serve their long sentence (and a very long one because of the immense damage caused) and we should attempt to rehabilitate them. The odds are the rehabilitation won't stick - we all know that. This is where the sex offender registry comes in handy.

I once got notification that a level three (the worst kind) of sex offender was living in our neighborhood. It included a photo, his address, name, nature of earlier offense, etc. I sat down with my son and showed him the pitcure, told him where the man lived in a way he couldn understand (near this store, near so-and-so's house), and told him that these things really do happen to kids just like him ... etc. I also made it clear that this was a bad man we knew about - the world is full of bad people who pretend to be good people to trick you, etc.

Because, again, the parent(s) are the first line of defense in these situations. I wouldn't mind seeing a more clear presentation in each grade about sexual abuse, how to avoid being a victim, how to get help if someone in your family is abusing you, etc.

We all think this is disgusting, abhorent behavior that causes immense damage - but killing anyone in the name of the government is a dangrous game to play. IMHO

[kwyjibo]

25. What do they do with the porn once he's in jail?

Do they just keep it as evidence or can they destroy it? I feel so bad knowing that stuff still exists.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

26. Tis an ill wind that blows no good

Not to make light of the subject, but someone had to say it.

I have very little compassion for sexual predators. The recidivism rate for offenders is very high, and I'm not aware of any treatment short of chemical castration that stops the behavior. And even that requires the cooperation of the predator. Then there are those who kill their victims to prevent discovery. It's a very ugly problem without many current solutions.

[TexasBushwhacker]

30. And there are more out there than people realize

I was checking out the Sex Offender Database in Texas and was appalled to see that at least 90% of them get nothing more than probation. Why? Because DA's get them to plea guilty rather than take the chance that they won't be able to get a conviction. Unless they're able to charge them with multiple counts, at best it's usually the child's word against the offender, and that's IF the child is old enough to testify and IF the child's parent will allow them to testify. Unless there was an adult witness, juries still have a hard time believing that some molesters have done the atrocious acts they're accused of. It's too unpleasant, so they'd rather believe that the child made it up. Unless there is physical evidence like semen on the child's body or clothes, it's really hard to get a conviction and prison time.

[Onlooker]

27. Executing child abusers might be worse for the abused children?

I think it would be worse for victims of child abuse to be told that what was done to them is so vile that the perpetrators should be executed.

I think it would be better to tell the victims of child abuse that what was done to them is as bad as any assault, and the perpetrators should get long jail sentences.

[Senior citizen]

32. So are you saying that it is better to tell a child

That bad person is in jail and won't bother you for at least several years.....

than to say

That bad person won't EVER bother you again.

Leave the details of the execution until they're older and can understand why it was necessary--not because of what he did to them, but because of what he was likely to do to other kids, and because when you diagnose a cancer on society, sometimes radical measures are needed. Depends, of course, on how advanced and how rapidly spreading the cancer is, and whether or not a society can remain healthy without radical intervention.

[reprobate]

28. Can we all just think for a moment on what he's charged with?

He is charged with "48 counts of creating computer images of child pornography". Just what did they mean by that? Did he actually photograph children or did he use one of the current graphics programs that create computer images from scratch without the use of actual humans. If it is the latter, it is protected because no child was used in their creation and therefor no law was broken.

It will take a while before the media and law enforcement get current with todays technology.

[gatlingforme]

29. From what I understand, computer generated child pornography

is treated as the same as reg. child pornography.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. No. The law that tried to do that was struck down by the SCOTUS. (nt)

[gatlingforme]

41. Thanks for the infor.

[reprobate]

36. Gatlingforme, the law in first amendment cases like this.....

....seems to hinge on the concept of 'harm'. The question being "who was harmed". In the case of photographs and video, there certainly would be harm inflicted on the child or children involved in the taking of the pictures.

In the case of computer 'poser' software, there is no human involved to be harmed. Note that we are talking about harm to the children in the taking of the pictures, not in the off chance that a child will see it.

Tho I'm not computer literate enough to use that kind of software, I understand that it can generate some rather lifelike figures.

Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, but I find first amendment cases to be fascinating. The interplay between the right to free speech and the reputed right to be free from "immoral" speech seems a never ending struggle.

Edited to add: You can see the struggle reaching astonishing levels when parents are arrested for child pornography for having film developed by walmart because they took unclothed pictures on their infant children. What parent hasn't? Shit, you used to go into Sears and they had specials of their fotographers taking naked pictures of infants for a fee. Sometimes it seems as if we are being ruled by the very dumbst among us.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Meet Eva Byte, Brazilian virtual newswoman:

http://www.luizamaral.com/Eva_Byte_2004_A.avi

[reprobate]

38. Thanks, JCCyC. Perfect example of 'poser' creation.

[gatlingforme]

40. Thanks for the info.. first amendment cases are of interest to me as well

I like to think first amend. trumps alot including computer generated photos.... as you said was harm done.. and in this case as I understand it,.. would not follow that rule. I was under the impression that at first computer gen. photos were the same but as I am corrected I agree with you on this. Thanks again

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reprobate]

33. You dare to openly threaten me with physical harm here on DU?

You sir, are no gentleman, and I demand an apology immediately.Since joining DU in its first week of operation in the first week of january, 2001, I have never before been threatened. I try to treat people with respect and demand the same from others.

If you cannot show the proper respect for individuals who disagree with you it's possible that you are here in error. There are other places on the internet that would welcome this kind of insolent attitude. Just not here.

Now, to your question: "And why you care more about whether or not a technicality in the law was broken",

You apparently don't have enough knowledge of the law to know that it is based on 'techicalities', nor enough respect for the law to know that to ignore those technicalities is to regress to barbarism. Perhaps you believe that public lynching is preferable to the rule of law? The rule of law is the only thing that separates us from the jumgle. It is what makes civilization possible.

You are wrong, again, when you claim that the lesser charge will keep him off the streets even without the 'creating' charge. In fact, if the 'creations' are computer 'poser' software generated, they are in fact not pornography, by law, since the law demands that a human be involved, specificly that a human child must have been harmed. If they are not defined as pornography, then the lesser charge falls apart, and the man walks. Is that what you want? Well, that's what you get by ignoring 'technicalities'.

Now, just go away until you learn how to behave among people.

[Senior citizen]

44. All the convicted felons of Iran/Contra who were later pardoned

for having lied to Congress, having been involved with drug smuggling, or for arming terrorists, and who are now part of the chimp's administration, share your respect for the law.

None of the high-level federal employees who wished to come forward with details of the chimp administration's involvement with 9/11, and were forbidden by law from speaking out, share your respect for the law.

A system of laws which protects the guilty, but fails to protect the innocent, is not worthy of respect.

Do you truly believe that, "the rule of law is the only thing that separates us from the jungle?" What about simple decency and the Golden Rule (the original, not the neocon mockery)? Are you of the belief that people only act decently and respect others when the law forces them to?

Do you truly believe that I dared to "openly threaten you with physical harm?" Because my post was deleted, there are probably people who will think that I did. I admit that, by a real stretch of the imagination, my post could have been interpreted that way. But not in any serious sense.

I have noticed in the past that there is a certain type of person who is a fierce defender of freedom of speech when it pertains to pornography, but who doesn't hesistate to censor anyone who would limit pornography so as to protect the women and children it harms.
I became aware of this type of 1st Amendment hypocrite because I've been censored before, and I'm not going away until and unless I'm barred. Even then, I will continue to speak out however, wherever, and whenever I can, as I consider it my birthright to do so.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

52. The rule of law IS the only thing that separates us from the jungle.

Decency and the Golden Rule, even if followed by 95% of the population, is no match for an army of determined marauders. That's why, even though we consider our society civilized (and it is), there's still a police force carrying guns.

Ah, and posts attacking pornography that are NOT personal attacks are NOT deleted, so, about that "censoring"...

[Senior citizen]

55. Laws, in my experience, can have an uncivilizing effect.

For example, some years back I had a business acquaintance who was a very sexually active young man with multiple partners. One day he said something about not using condoms, so I asked him if he'd been tested for AIDS.

He told me that he had not been tested and did not plan to get tested. He explained that if he was HIV+ and infected someone else, no crime had been committed, because he hadn't been tested and had no way of knowing his HIV status. But apparently the law said that if he KNEW he was HIV+ and infected someone else, he would be committing a crime. So, in order to stay on the right side of the law, he was risking his own life and that of his sexual partners.

You may call that civilized behavior, but I do not, nor can I see how any armed law enforcement agency could civilize someone like that.

In what way would you say that a law which makes it a crime to sexually abuse children unless they are your own children, has a civilizing effect?

In what way would you say that a law which makes it a crime to distribute child pornography unless it was made using technology instead of actual children, has a civilizing effect? Do you think that people who are obsessive about kiddy porn will, should they ever decide to act out their obsession, restrict themselves to virtual children instead of using real children, just because some of the porn they've enjoyed only used virtual children? How do you suggest that they would know the difference between legal and illegal kiddy porn, if the technology is so realistic?

You were here in this thread and you should know that I did not make any personal attacks or physical attacks on anyone. Nor did I threaten anyone. DU has a policy of removing "iffy" posts, just to be on the safe side, and by a long stretch of the imagination, if you thought that I had information I do not have, and which I made clear that I did not have, or cohorts I do not have, or mobility I do not have, or intentions I do not have, you might think that my post could possibly be construed as a threat. Even so, it is a far cry from threatening to visit someone, ***IF*** they chose to give me their address, and threatening to attack them. As it happens, in the next post, where I am accused of "physically" threatening him, reprobate says I have an "insolent" attitude and tells me to go away. There's a big difference between having an insolent attitude and threatening someone.

I feel it is insolent and uncivilized to defend kiddy porn, whatever the legalities. I believe that an intelligent person would know that there is a difference between using kids (or simulations of kids) for their own selfish purposes), and respecting the right of children not to be used or viewed as sex objects. When the law endangers kids instead of protecting them, it is neither civilizing nor worthy of respect.

WHAT???? Did I say the "right" of children? Don't I know that our law doesn't give children any right not to be viewed as sex objects? Don't I understand that I should be respectful, rather than obnoxiously insolent (but not threatening, nor indulging in ad hominem attacks) towards people who defend legal child molestation (the incest exception) or legal kiddy porn (using virtual rather than actual children)?

I do indeed have an insolent attitude towards child molesters and defenders of kiddy porn. I have every right to have an insolent attitude towards people I perceive as hurting, or encouraging others to hurt kids. And you and reprobate have the right to be respectful or even deferential towards such people if you choose. I certainly can't stop you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

62. I was here AFTER your post was deleted

Both reprobate AND THE MODERATORS disagree with you. I asked him by PM what was written.

Do you think I'm encouraging others to hurt kids? If I am, so is the SCOTUS.

Edit: either that or it went away so fast I hadn't a chance to see it.

[Senior citizen]

63. I never implied that the current SCOTUS had kids' interests at heart,

and I would never suggest that they have our interests at heart either. I haven't forgotten the last election. Or any of their other injudicious rulings.

The moderators and the administrators have been extremely busy. I've contacted both, but haven't heard back yet, which is understandable. I did not ask for anyone's post to be deleted, nor did I ask for my deleted post to be restored.

Suppose I say to you, JCCyC, that if you CHOOSE to give me your address, I'll come and visit you. I haven't looked at your profile, or reprobate's, so you could be anywhere in the country. Maybe it would be easy for me to visit you, if you happen to be in my vicinity, but it is also possible that you are a long plane ride or several days drive away. Besides, in saying I'll come and visit you, I have not said that I would attack you when I got there. Of course, I couldn't even visit if you chose NOT to give me your address. So, in order to interpret what I said as a PHYSICAL threat, you'd have to make several unlikely assumptions. 1) That despite disagreeing with me, you would choose to give me your address. 2) That I could and would actually visit you. and 3) That I would be physically violent towards you when I got there. But this is a virtual, rather than a physical forum. You know, like the difference between virtual and physical kids. So if I can "physically threaten" someone in a virtual forum where no actual physical contact takes place, I don't understand why people can't "physically harm" children even if they don't use real children in producing kiddy porn. Why don't you explain it to me?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. OMFG I got the response I was waiting for from elsewhere.

The moderators were right. I'm out of here and hiding this thread. Buh-bye.

[Radius]

45. If he photoshopped

adults to look like kids that is legal.

If he created images from minors and then served them I hope he gets his balls cut off in prison.

[Blue_Tires]

34. good-ole family values in "FRed-NECK"

would expect nothing less (former MD resident)

isn't that also where Lynndie England's reserve group is from?

[MountainLaurel]

47. Naw

Lynndie's group is from Cumberland I believe, or possibly Hagerstown. But it's 6 of one, and a half dozen of another.

[wordout]

42. is this guy a cia asset

whose cover was blown by the cleanup crew??

[jwirr]

53. Unless there is something new

I don't think they have come up with a therapy that works for child porn users or pedifiles yet. So help is something that is not available. I do not know about now just about 10 years ago.

[Senior citizen]

56. I think you're right.

I don't even think there's any effective therapy to cure what I've heard called an "addiction" to porn.

Now I know there are people who can use something addictive without getting hooked. But when people claim that they are addicted to something and would LIKE to stop, but cannot, I think that's another story.

As I understand it, the way something addictive works is that you need stronger and stronger doses in order to experience the same "high." So I suppose a porn addict might graduate from soft core to hard core to kiddy porn as each level in turn began to lose it's kick. And I assume that those who enjoy porn but do not get addicted, simply limit their dosage in some way. But I'm no expert.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

61. Sexual desire doesn't "snowball" like a strong drug addiction

It more or less stays the same throughout one's life. Regular porn doesn't make one a pedophile.

[Senior citizen]

65. That may well be true for some.

For most people sexual desire changes with their hormone levels, generally becoming stronger at adolescence, and weaker late in life when hormone levels drop. If sexual desire more or less stayed the same throughout a person's life, there wouldn't be such a big market for things like VIAGRA.

I didn't say that regular porn makes one a pedophile. Just because cocaine exists, doesn't mean I have to use it, and even if I used it, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'd become addicted.

But people who are obsessive about porn can become jaded. It is quite possible that all those people who got on TV claiming to be addicted to pornography were liars who just wanted the publicity, or actors paid to make false claims. It is also possible that they, and the therapists treating them, are dealing with a real problem. Since porn is allegedly a nine billion dollar a year industry in this country, I'd venture to say that among such a large user group there are likely to be at least a few addictive personalities.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. I meant type of desire, not intensity. (nt)

[George_S]

69. Long Live Eugenics!

Fascinating thread that on the surface the logical conclusion seems to be: porn addicts should be put to death.

Let's look a some of the assumptions.

1) The offender is a Republican:

So who molests kids?

Only one characteristic is clear: Child molesters are predominantly men.

"It's virtually impossible to profile a child molester, because so many types of people are getting so many different needs met by getting sexually involved with a child," says Ryan. True pedophiles have sexual feelings toward children only. "But there are many people who molest children who are sexually interested in peers, too."

Most sexual offenders were sexually abused as children; 40% to 80% of pedophiles were raped as a child, Burton says. "The large majority of them learn to do what they do. Others we don't understand as well." Pedophiles often target and abuse children who are the same age the predator was when he was first sexually abused.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2002/2002-03-12-pedophilia.htm


2) Sex offenders are incurable and child molesters are more likely to re-offend that nonsexual offenders - FALSE:

Question: How does the recidivism of child molesters differ from that of nonsexual criminals?

Answer: The initial follow-up of the child molesters found that 42% were reconvicted of a sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period. Ten percent of the total sample of child molesters were first convicted for a sexual/violent crime between 10 and 31 years after release. Not all child molesters recidivated at the same rate. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offenses, who selected extrafamilial boy victims, and who were never married. In contrast, the long-term recidivism rate for the low risk offenders was less than 20%.

Although the long-term recidivism rates for the child molesters were substantial, the recidivism rates for the nonsexual criminals were even higher, 61% versus 83.2%, respectively, for any reconviction. That nonsexual criminals have higher recidivism rates than child molesters runs contrary to the common assumption that child molesters are a particularly high risk group of offenders. Nonsexual criminals tended to be reconvicted for property offenses and for nonsexual violent offenses. In contrast, child molesters had much higher rates of sexual recidivism (35%) than did the nonsexual criminal group (1.5%). The predictors of sexual recidivism (e.g., prior sexual offenses, victim type) were different from the predictors of nonsexual recidivism (e.g., low education, youth, nonviolent offenses).

Note that the study doesn't say they were reconvicted for a child offense. It would be interesting to know that percentage as well.

3) Draconian Laws Will Cure Child Molestation - FALSE:

In fact, they may increase recidivism:

Question: Does punishment of offenders reduce their re-offending?

Background: In the mid-1970s, there was a noticeable shift in criminal justice policy in the United States, and less markedly in Canada. Emphasis was directed away from offender rehabilitation programming toward punishment in order to control recidivistic crime. The use of incarceration increased substantially in many jurisdictions and sentences of imprisonment became longer. In addition to the increased use of incarceration, the last 25 years saw an explosion in the use of intermediate sanctions.

Intermediate sanctions represent a range of punishments falling between traditional probation and imprisonment. They include intensive probation supervision, electronic monitoring, boot camps and short periods of incarceration followed by intensive surveillance in the community ("shock incarceration"). Underlying these punitive approaches to criminal behaviour is the belief that criminal justice sanctions will deter offenders from re-offending.

Method: A meta-analytic review of the literature on the effects of criminal justice sanctions on recidivism was conducted. Meta-analysis provides a quantitative synthesis of the research literature and this method is widely regarded as superior to the more traditional narrative literature review.

The literature search identified 111 studies that examined the association between various criminal justice punishments and recidivism. Over 442,000 offenders were involved in these studies. The review included studies of imprisonment and intermediate sanctions. Noteworthy in the review were analyses of the findings with different types of offenders (e.g., juveniles, women, minorities).

Answer: The overall findings showed that harsher criminal justice sanctions had no deterrent effect on recidivism. On the contrary, punishment produced a slight (3%) increase in recidivism. These findings were consistent across subgroups of offenders (adult/youth, male/female, white/minority).

Compared to community sanctions, imprisonment was associated with an increase in recidivism. Further analysis of the incarceration studies found that longer sentences were associated with higher recidivism rates. Short sentences (less than six months) had no effect on recidivism but sentences of more than two years had an average increase in recidivism of seven per cent.

Intermediate sanctions demonstrated no relationship with recidivism. This category included studies of intensive supervision, fines, boot camps, electronic monitoring, scared straight, drug testing and restitution. Once again, no differential effects were found with respect to age group, gender and race.

Note: Of course, some could argue that if they are put away for life, no worries. This statistical logic flamed the 3 Strikes Law in California. Since, say, 60% (or whatever) are likely to re-offend, damn the other 40% and lock them all up and throw away the key.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/200205_e.asp


4) Is there a solution? Who knows? While we all agree the trauma of childhood rape has to stop, the solution is the real question. Seems many liberals agree with the eugenics of many conservatives (google eugenics and heritage foundation for more), the difference is, conservatives eugenicists have a wider list. So...

Surely this growing phenomenon of child abuse, as much as anything else, is a symptom of the spiritual malignancy with which our society has become afflicted. The real question is – is the disease terminal?

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/pedophiliaDisease.htm

Could the more sexually liberal countries that have significantly less incidences of teen pregnancies and STDs, along with must less sexually violent crime, hint at a solution?

I don't know, but do know the Religious Right will never give us the chance to find out. Maybe Justice Scalia is opening the door though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1317386,00.html

I think he's right, and a sexually more liberal U.S. would probably bring sexual crimes way down. This is not to say baby raping should be legal, but only that the repression of our natural human sexuality leads to misunderstanding, and that misunderstanding leads to unhealthy addictions.

Just 2 cents that could be wrong.

[Senior citizen]

70. Three strikes will probably be modified in California

Proposition 66, if it passes, would limit three strikes to violent or serious felonies. Coincidentally, it would also increase penalties for child molesters, imposing a 1-strike sentencing guideline in the most egregious cases.

As for porn addicts being put to death, there is a difference between porn and kiddy porn, i.e., the latter involves children.

I don't know anyone who advocates that porn addicts should be put to death, but a lot of people seem to feel that child molesters, and the industry that caters to and encourages them, have no socially redeeming value. Actually, if you left it up to community standards, a lot of child molesters would be lynched by angry parents. And many of us who respect the law and oppose lynching, would be hard put not to sympathize with the parents in such cases. Must be because we're so sexually repressed.

[George_S]

71. Health or Revenge?

What does 3 strikes being modified have to do with it?

Guess it depends on if you want healthy. well adjusted children or not, of if you would rather satisfy your own revenge.

You can try to spin it any way you want, but the facts disagree with you. You said you are not an expert. Neither am I, but at least I'm willing to look at what the experts have to say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/662403.stm

[Senior citizen]

72. In your previous post, you mentioned the three strikes law.

If it isn't relevant, why did you bring it up?

I clicked on your link, and nowhere did I find anything or anyone, least of all an "expert" claiming that the sexual molestation of young children by adults leads to healthy well adjusted children.

Then I googled and clicked on another link. Check it out:

http://home.tiscali.be/marc.reisinger/PRESSE/DocPresse/2001-03-19%20Newsweek.html#BODY

[George_S]

74. What's the point of writing words if you aren't going to read them?

Anyway, the mods moved this to the archives for obviously good reasons.

[Senior citizen]

76. Well, you really do have a point.

In the smaller, more homogenous, more affluent and egalitarian society of the Netherlands, their sense of security makes it possible for them to do things that we cannot do without causing harm to children. Unfortunately our own society seems to be adamantly opposed to that sort of socialism. If we could eliminate hunger, homelessness and poverty to the point where you didn’t have those with advantages able to exploit those without, and if we had a society in which everyone was well educated and brought up with a sense of responsibility to others and to their community rather than just to themselves, a more mature attitude would be prevalent. Until and unless we are able to protect weak and vulnerable children from the predators in our society, we would be foolish to be more permissive. More simply, if you live in a gated community you can permit your children more freedom without endangering them, than if you live in a ghetto. Of course everyone would have to pay more taxes to support such a system, and we would still have to wait a couple of generations for it to take effect.

On edit: Nobody bothered to tell me this thread had been archived, or why. It is quite possible that some of my posts were alienating potential Democratic voters who, in my opinion, are more likely to vote Libertarian anyway.

[Democracy Died 2004]

73. That's Fredneck, MD. n/t