| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
NightHedgehog
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 38
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:32 am |
 |
|
Isn't a millenium prison term a tad excessive?
Not that I condone this behaivor, mind you. I'm glad they're putting these pedophiles behind bars.
But still, that is a rather long time to send someone to prison. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Demaar
Joined: 29 May 2004
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:41 am |
|
|
I'm kind of split on the issue myself, ya know?
I mean, if these... well, freaks, can get off on drawings to get rid of their sexual urges, then isn't that a good thing?
Though it does make me ill to even say what I just said, which would you prefer? A sexually satisifed freak that "looks" at drawings, or a sexually starved freak that doesn't "look" at drawings?
Me? I think I prefer the one that's satisfied, without a child being harmed. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Izlude
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 323
Location: Wherever The Wind Takes Me
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:43 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | When he is sentenced on March 10, he faces a maximum sentence of 1,160 years in prison |
Can a man even live that long? WTF...dumbasses.
Still I think jailing a man for some pictures and e-mails exchanged on the internet is stupid, I'd be more concerned if he was actually sexually abused children in real life.
Instead of trying to help this obviously sexually denied man, they throw him into prison for a few dozen lifetimes worth, when this man needs help to cope with his fantasies, as morally wrong as they are. |
| Back to top |
|
|
remember love
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 764
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:49 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | Besides the anime-child porn, he was also received digital photographs of children engaged in sexually explicit acts. |
It wasn't just drawings he's going for jail...It's also actually photos of the children. Personally, I think the term is stupid they should just say life in prison without parol and stop that nonsence. And the fine....yeah....let me see him pay that(probably going to have to work it off while in prison). |
| Back to top |
|
|
InuyashaMilk1717
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Posts: 24
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:56 am |
|
|
If you chop a child's head off. You get 25 years. [if quilty]
If you look at naked pictures of a child. You get 1,100 years. [you will be quilty] |
| Back to top |
|
|
tempest
ANN Publisher & CEO
Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 7855
Location: Do not message me for support.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:15 am |
|
|
| InuyashaMilk1717 wrote: | If you chop a child's head off. You get 25 years. [if quilty]
If you look at naked pictures of a child. You get 1,100 years. [you will be quilty] |
There's a reason he gets 1000+ years. First off, by law, he faces X number of years per charge, and he's looking at 70 charges, all as a "3rd time loser."
Secondly, childporn is not a "life without parole" punishable offense, but in cases where they don't want a person to ever be free, they sentence him on multiple accounts. A 1000 year concecutive (as opposed to several sentences served at the same time) sentence won't see parole for over 100 years. The result is life without parole in a situation where they aren't supposed to eb able to do that.
And finally, don't forget, all that is what he can possibly be sentenced. The judge might easilly sentence him to 20 years or something...
-t |
| Back to top |
|
|
Mohawk52
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 5195
Location: England, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:17 am |
|
|
| Izlude wrote: | | Quote: | | When he is sentenced on March 10, he faces a maximum sentence of 1,160 years in prison |
Can a man even live that long? WTF...dumbasses.
Still I think jailing a man for some pictures and e-mails exchanged on the internet is stupid, I'd be more concerned if he was actually sexually abused children in real life.
Instead of trying to help this obviously sexually denied man, they throw him into prison for a few dozen lifetimes worth, when this man needs help to cope with his fantasies, as morally wrong as they are. |
This was a blaintant violation of his probation of a previous conviction. he had his chance to "cure" himself from this addiction but he failed. I noticed that law states a "2 strikes, your out" rule. Well the umpire just called Steeerrike twwoo! He's out. I suppose he could appeal on the anime stuff but they got him on so much of the real stuff, what would be the point?
Last edited by Mohawk52 on Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
| Back to top |
|
|
fxg97873
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 197
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:18 am |
|
|
Well, obviously if he has real or virtually real child pornography on his computer then he has no excuse.
The article and the past related article are confusing me though.
Did he also get charged for having anime porn with underaged-like characters or did they include that in because it was part of his parole violation "no pornography period"?
Cause if they are charging for having anime with underaged characters involved in nudity, lewd acts or sex acts, then I think probably Best Buy, Suncoast and Fry's probably need to get raided for about 1/3 of their anime.
As fans I think we make categorizations between lolicon stuff and outright child porn, but to the law its all the same if the character looks or is claimed to be under 18.
Normal but explicit series like Tenhjo Tenge, Ikki Tousen, Gantz (especially Gantz in the later episodes with actual hentai scenes between minors) would automatically fall into the category. And let's not forget about 90% of the hentai out there. Just cause they put a disclaimer at the beginning claiming to not feature underaged characters and then blatantly doing it anyways doesn't make it not count.
Anyhow, I would hate to have to throw my anime into a fire.
mk2000 |
| Back to top |
|
|
space clam
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 636
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:53 am |
|
|
| I wonder if I can now reseed the "illegal in Banada" meme with "illegal in Virginia." The guy was dumb for downloading this stuff on a government computer, anyway. You know, they sure don't check THOSE or anything like that... |
| Back to top |
|
|
angel_lover
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 645
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:41 pm |
|
|
Reality check here, guys. Yes it was "just drawings" that he's partly going to jail for, but if you take the trouble to look at the law in question, Title 18, part 1, chapter 71, section 1466A, subsection a, you see this:
| Congress wrote: | (a) In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
....(1)
........(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
........(B) is obscene; or
|
The operative word is the 'and' I've put in green, and makes clear that this is an obscenity offense. Obscenity is already illegal, and so what this law does is to provide specific sentences and permitted defenses for a particular kind of obscenity. The original version of the law did not have the "and is obscene", but this was declared unconstitutional as it clearly violated the First Amendment.
In other words, the law doesn't really make loli manga/anime any more illegal than it was before. What it does do is make the politicians look good and helps feed the general climate of pedophile panic. |
| Back to top |
|
|
penguintruth
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 3964
Location: Penguinopolis
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:58 pm |
|
|
What I think is obscene is putting somebody in prison for life who has harmed no human being in any way, shape, or form.
Yeah, he has a sickness, but it's a sickness, and should be treated. Society shouldn't just shrug its shoulders, lock the guy in a box, and throw away the key.
It shows a failure of compassion or understanding. You don't just discount a person's humanity because you find it inconvenient or "icky" to get to know why they think as they do. |
| Back to top |
|
|
daxomni
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Somewhere else.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:04 pm |
|
|
| angel_lover wrote: | | In other words, the law doesn't really make loli manga/anime any more illegal than it was before. What it does do is make the politicians look good and helps feed the general climate of pedophile panic. |
Based on the links provided, I would tend to agree with your legal reading of the case and the law that it was based on. However, I'm still curious which parts of the world have the specific level of pedophilic approval you would support and why?
America may look like it's really uptight about this sort of thing, but the fact remains that you can still legally possess, sell, and buy most forms of lolicon so long as they can't be reasonably confused with authentic child pornography. Is that really to much of a police state for you? The balance seems intact to me and is not beyond legitimate concern for the wellbeing of all minors. |
| Back to top |
|
|
enjin2000
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1484
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:26 pm |
|
|
Hmmm, it is beynd understanding.
The Japanese law also punishes a person who produces a real child pornography,
but does not a person who only possesses one
because it is the principle of the modern law not to judge the inner space of a man/woman
unless he/she does carry out an illegal act.
Westerners must consider child porno as if opium. |
| Back to top |
|
|
tempest
ANN Publisher & CEO
Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 7855
Location: Do not message me for support.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:45 pm |
|
|
| enjin2000 wrote: | | Westerners must consider child porno as if opium. |
Western law believes that "possesion breeds production."
In other words, the belief is that by possessing this material the individual is inciting others to produce it. Harming children in the process.
Mind you, there is a a very significant debate about "virtual" material. Since no child was harmed in the making, "what's worng with it?"
-t |
| Back to top |
|
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Joined: 05 Jan 2002
Posts: 5419
Location: Snake Mountain Cocktail Lounge
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:13 pm |
|
|
| enjin2000 wrote: | Hmmm, it is beynd understanding.
The Japanese law also punishes a person who produces a real child pornography,
but does not a person who only possesses one
because it is the principle of the modern law not to judge the inner space of a man/woman
unless he/she does carry out an illegal act.
|
Are you presuming that somehow Japanese law is superior to Western law because they don't "judge people" for being pedophiles?
Because I would disagree with that. |
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Robert's Anime Corner Store
AAA Anime Distribution
Visit AniplexUSA.com
Anime Castle
