First Alaska woman charged with possessing child pornography gets no jail time

[ROFLBURGER]

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51244940]These "reasons" are total bullcrap though. Crocodile tears and all that. Wouldn't fly if she wasn't a woman with puppy eyes in front of the judge. I mean come on dude, everything they say is so vague and generic you can't possibly think of that as a valid reason to get off free for supporting child abuse. Judge is not a smart person it seems.[/QUOTE]

I want to eat my words, then. Find me an example of a situation where a male was given a much harsher sentence for the same crimes in a state where child pornography laws are similar to the ones in Alaska. That male must've been sexually abused as a child, and it was argued in court that he viewed them not because of sexual desires.

[rndgenerator]

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51245008]I want to eat my words, then. Find me an example of a situation where a male was given a much harsher sentence for the same crimes in a state where child pornography laws are similar to the ones in Alaska. That male must've been sexually abused as a child, and it was argued in court that he viewed them not because of sexual desires.[/QUOTE]
Such a particular set of circumstances is really hard to find and might not exist, so you are right, it was not due to gender.

[Venomousbeetle]

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51245008]I want to eat my words, then. Find me an example of a situation where a male was given a much harsher sentence for the same crimes in a state where child pornography laws are similar to the ones in Alaska. That male must've been sexually abused as a child, and it was argued in court that he viewed them not because of sexual desires.[/QUOTE]

plenty of lesser circumstances such as people that didn't distribute or even wittingly acquire the cp

not to mention the daycare job adding extra creeper status

[ROFLBURGER]

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51245117]Such a particular set of circumstances is really hard to find and might not exist, so you are right, it was not due to gender.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if that was sarcasm or not. I purposefully told you to try and find the equivalent of the holy grail of evidence in order to prove two points.

Point 1: The Court System isn't black and white. People get different, yet fair, punishments when it comes to different circumstances. For example, in a fair court system, a starving man who steals $10 worth of food would get less of a punishment than a sated man who stole $10 of food. I'm not saying that a woman should receive a lesser punishment than a man, but if it was proven that the woman viewed child pornography because she identified with the victims then you should expect a lesser sentence.

Point 2: Don't make serious accusations that you can't back up! Yes, there are some judges in court who genuinely believe that women should receive lesser sentences than men, but don't call wolf when there isn't a wolf.

[Swamplord]

If it was "exploratory", was there any reason given to why did she distribute it?

[ROFLBURGER]

[QUOTE=Swamplord;51245492]If it was "exploratory", was there any reason given to why did she distribute it?[/QUOTE]

This is speculation but according to another article, she viewed them on a peer to peer network.

[quote]A detective using special software found an Internet Protocol, or IP, address connected to a computer that was sharing illegal files. The files contained keywords indicating they were possibly child pornography. The IP address appeared to be in Alaska, and further investigation led the detective to a peer-to-peer file-sharing network.[/quote]

[url]https://www.adn.com/crime-justice/article/day-care-worker-alaskas-first-female-child-porn-suspect/2013/06/27/[/url]

Peer-To-Peer is pretty interesting when it comes to internet crime. For example if I pirated something using a peer to peer network (torrenting) and got caught, I could be charged with piracy as well as distributing. Not many people know this, especially common folk.

But for all we know, she could've distributed it intentionally to others.

[niiiiiiiiok]

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51244912]For the record, I think her sentence is light relative to her crimes. But they're light because of the above circumstances, not because she's a woman.

Like I really hope everyone here who's jumping to conclusions [B]DIDN'T[/B] read the article, because it's one thing to be unaware of the facts and it's another thing to know the facts and disregard them completely.[/QUOTE]
"I-it was e-exploratory"
if she was a man, you could expect at the fucking least a good 5-10 year sentence

[kylel999]

Ah, yes, 2016, sexism when women don't like equal treatment, equality when they do

[maddogsamurai]

If she felt terrible about the children being exploited, why didn't she just report the websites to authorities instead of illegally downloading them? Could she even try to report them? Did she think that she could hold them in possession on her HDD and told the police about them? I don't think that works that way, as there are many ways she could probably have done, despite the fact that she got away with it.

[butre]

pedophilia is a mental illness. imagine if we sent people with downs syndrome or autism to prison for not being "normal"

rehabilitation is the correct avenue for pedophilia, all sending them to jail does is make them more secretive about it. teaches them to not get caught doing it. in effect, you're making them better at their crime. same deal with the societal demonization of pedophiles.

note that pedophiles and child molesters aren't the same thing. a pedophile is a mentally ill person and typically does not act on their desires further than consuming pornography. just like you or I being attracted to adult women (or men, whatever gets you going) doesn't mean we're raping those people, a pedophile liking kids doesn't mean they're raping them. a typical child molester typically isn't a pedophile at all, but an opportunistic sadist who's found an easy target. child molesters should be hit with the book 2 or 3 times over

[editline]23rd October 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;51249653]If she felt terrible about the children being exploited, why didn't she just report the websites to authorities instead of illegally downloading them? Could she even try to report them? Did she think that she could hold them in possession on her HDD and told the police about them? I don't think that works that way, as there are many ways she could probably have done, despite the fact that she got away with it.[/QUOTE]

she really didn't get away with it. she was remanded for 3 years before being tried. she didn't avoid jail time, her sentence was time served plus probation.

[rndgenerator]

[QUOTE=butre;51249735]pedophilia is a mental illness.[/QUOTE]
Source? All I've ever seen is that pedophilia is a preference/sexual fetish same way as say preferring older women, except with children. There doesn't seem to be any evidence pointing at pedophilia to be a mental illness.

And I have no idea why you think most child molesters are not pedophiles. If they were not, wouldn't they just rape grown men/women?

Seems like a whole lot of bull

Also how do you rehab a pedo?

[butre]

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51249758]Source? All I've ever seen is that pedophilia is a preference/sexual fetish same way as say preferring older women, except with children. There doesn't seem to be any evidence pointing at pedophilia to be a mental illness.

And I have no idea why you think most child molesters are not pedophiles. If they were not, wouldn't they just rape grown men/women?

Seems like a whole lot of bull

Also how do you rehab a pedo?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/focus_on_the_cause.html[/url]
[url]http://www.livescience.com/17519-treating-pedophiles-therapy-challenge.html[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_Pedophiles[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circles_of_Support_and_Accountability[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_the_Treatment_of_Sexual_Abusers[/url]

grown men and women are more likely to fight back and are considerably harder to manipulate than a child. rape isn't a case of sexual attraction to a person, but rather sexual attraction to power over a person, and it's much easier to assert dominance over someone easily manipulated and unable to defend themselves.

the best way anyone has found to rehab a pedophile is group therapy. it's hard to be scientific about it as you can't morally have a control group of unrehabilitated pedophiles roaming the streets. all we know is that unrehabilitated child molesters are 6 times more likely to be repeat offenders.

[Sharo]

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51249758]Source? All I've ever seen is that pedophilia is a preference/sexual fetish same way as say preferring older women, except with children.[/QUOTE]
Yes to all. I think it is a preference, but it also happens to cause suffering to anyone who is affected, whether that be only the pedophile himself or otherwise, which makes it reasonable to call it a disorder. But I don't think it can be cured or changed, so in that sense calling it an illness might be misleading.

[QUOTE]And I have no idea why you think most child molesters are not pedophiles. If they were not, wouldn't they just rape grown men/women?[/QUOTE]
The idea is that someone who would do such a thing is more likely to suffer from more serious mental disturbances than just a preference for kids, so people who do it are more likely to be motivated by the fact that children are easier targets. But nobody has reliable numbers, so who knows.

[QUOTE=butre;51249979]the best way anyone has found to rehab a pedophile is group therapy. it's hard to be scientific about it as you can't morally have a control group of unrehabilitated pedophiles roaming the streets. all we know is that unrehabilitated child molesters are 6 times more likely to be repeat offenders.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you just argue that child molester and pedophile isn't the same? This last paragraph seems to strongly imply that 'unrehabilitated pedophiles' are child molesters. I don't think you can rehabilitate pedophilia; but you can treat issues that sometimes appear to 'trigger' pedophillic tendencies, such as in cases like this woman where the thoughts and actions seem to very likely stem from her own childhood abuse. I think the way to rehabilitate pedophilia is to ignore the pedophilia, and instead heavily encourage treating other issues such as stress, depression, anxiety, trauma, and so on. Try to fight stigma against therapy, and lower the hysteria towards pedophilia so people who experience those thoughts feel that they can safely get their other issues treated. As I said, I don't think pedophilia itself can be treated, but an otherwise mentally healthy pedophile isn't dangerous, so we need to just treat them as troubled people, and forget about the notion that we can change people's preferences.

[butre]

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51250215]Yes to all. I think it is a preference, but it also happens to cause suffering to anyone who is affected, whether that be only the pedophile himself or otherwise, which makes it reasonable to call it a disorder. But I don't think it can be cured or changed, so in that sense calling it an illness might be misleading.

The idea is that someone who would do such a thing is more likely to suffer from more serious mental disturbances than just a preference for kids, so people who do it are more likely to be motivated by the fact that children are easier targets. But nobody has reliable numbers, so who knows.

Didn't you just argue that child molester and pedophile isn't the same? This last paragraph seems to strongly imply that 'unrehabilitated pedophiles' are child molesters. I don't think you can rehabilitate pedophilia; but you can treat issues that sometimes appear to 'trigger' pedophillic tendencies, such as in cases like this woman where the thoughts and actions seem to very likely stem from her own childhood abuse. I think the way to rehabilitate pedophilia is to ignore the pedophilia, and instead heavily encourage treating other issues such as stress, depression, anxiety, trauma, and so on. Try to fight stigma against therapy, and lower the hysteria towards pedophilia so people who experience those thoughts feel that they can safely get their other issues treated. As I said, I don't think pedophilia itself can be treated, but an otherwise mentally healthy pedophile isn't dangerous, so we need to just treat them as troubled people, and forget about the notion that we can change people's preferences.[/QUOTE]

you have to be able to identify pedophiles and it's hard to do that without them first committing a crime, since society stigmatizes pedophiles so much that they're afraid to seek treatment.

[Sharo]

[QUOTE=butre;51250238]you have to be able to identify pedophiles and it's hard to do that without them first committing a crime, since society stigmatizes pedophiles so much that they're afraid to seek treatment.[/QUOTE]

I'm just saying you're being inconsistent. Just last page you said that pedophiles typically don't rape kids, and that child molesters typically aren't pedophiles. But now you're saying that group therapy is effective for treating pedophilia because it apparently has been shown to be effective for child molesters. The fact that it is really difficult to find a large group of non-criminal pedophiles doesn't mean you can throw away the argument that you were just making about how they aren't the same because it's convenient. In any case, it is the criminal and/or troubled ones that need treatment, so this is just semantics, I'm just pointing it out the inconsistencies to avoid confusion.

[butre]

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51250302]I'm just saying you're being inconsistent. Just last page you said that pedophiles typically don't rape kids, and that child molesters typically aren't pedophiles. But now you're saying that group therapy is effective for treating pedophilia because it apparently has been shown to be effective for child molesters. The fact that it is really difficult to find a large group of non-criminal pedophiles doesn't mean you can throw away the argument that you were just making about how they aren't the same because it's convenient. In any case, it is the criminal and/or troubled ones that need treatment, so this is just semantics, I'm just pointing it out the inconsistencies to avoid confusion.[/QUOTE]

the thing is if they're not troubled by it they probably are criminal about it. they may not be out raping kids but chances are they're consuming child pornography