Forum - View topic

NEWS: Twins, 20, Jailed for Child Porn Including 'Manga' Images

In respect of the rational connection requirement, McLachlin C.J.C. stated that the
Crown need not show scientific proof when demonstrating harm. Instead a “reasoned
apprehension of harm” would suffice, contrary to the standard applied by Shaw J.36 She
considered each of the alleged harms raised by the second Crown expert. While “the scientific
evidence was not strong”, she was convinced that a rational connection existed between the
alleged harm and the use of pornography. Possession of child pornography increases the risk of
child abuse, which cannot be dealt with merely by banning its publication and distribution.

In 1983, Judy Johnson, mother of one of the Manhattan Beach, California preschool's young students, complained to the police that her son had been sodomized by her estranged husband and by McMartin teacher Ray Buckey, who was the grandson of school founder Virginia McMartin and son of administrator Peggy McMartin Buckey

Johnson was diagnosed with and hospitalized for acute paranoid schizophrenia[2][7][8][9] and in 1986 was found dead in her home from complications of chronic alcoholism[1][10] before the preliminary hearing concluded

Several hundred children were then interviewed by the Children's Institute International (CII), a Los Angeles abuse therapy clinic. The interviewing techniques used during investigations of the allegations were highly suggestive and invited children to pretend or speculate about supposed events

When shown a series of photographs by Danny Davis, the McMartins' lawyer, one child identified actor Chuck Norris as one of the abusers

Let's put it this way; if you're going to deny everything in order to win an argument, you're behaving like a sore looser.

I mean if you have any doubt that the twins were wrongfully accused due to unfair interrogation, then by all means you can file a request of their mandatory electronic recording of custodial interrogation here.

It's not like this is some sort of witch-hunt, aka moral panic.

And you want scientific proof that virtual child pornography is harmful material? OK then.

BTW, aren't virtual child pornography a "pornographic" material with "intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child"?

You DO realize that article "Online Predators and their victims" doesn't support your slippery slope idea opening as it does with the line "The publicity about online predators who prey on naive children using trickery and violence are largely inaccurate"
Or from page 8 the bolded text reads "Online child molesters are generally not pedophiles" which sort of shoots the idea that people downloading images are necessarily pedophiles.
On page 11- it is noted, is it not, that cases of substantiated sexual abuse cases declined between 1990-2005 by 51% so again, how is virtual porn spreading pedophilia?

Sorry, I'm not paying $20 to read your last proof.

So I'm still at the point of believing all this virtual child porn stuff is little different from the preschool child abuse hysteria rampant in the 1980's.

Both Corey and David had been sent for a risk assessment through the provincial sex offender treatment program. David’s report was fairly positive and indicated he had a low risk to re-offend, prompting the Crown to reduce his charges to a summary offence, which lowers the mandatory minimum sentence that comes with a guilty plea.

The Crown recommended both twins receive the same sentence, although the mode of trial was different for both boys.