Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I despise pedophiles. They cause tremendous damage to the children they victimize and to society as a whole. With that said, they deserve basic rights.
What basic rights does a pedophile deserve that don't include them living a secluded life permanently behind high walls away from the objects of their desire?
What basic rights does a pedophile deserve that don't include them living a secluded life permanently behind high walls away from the objects of their desire?
Again: Not all pedophiles are child molesters. We shouldn't condemn them for having an unfortunate sexual preference. Not until they act on it. Only when they act on it do they become child molesters.
There's plenty of pedophiles that can function in society without ever molesting a child.
What basic rights does a pedophile deserve that don't include them living a secluded life permanently behind high walls away from the objects of their desire?
Well, for starters, they can't be incarcerated for simply BEING a pedophile. They actually have to commit a crime that victimizes a child. Simply being a pedophile (mere thought) cannot be criminalized regardless of how much we may want them all locked away.
Those who do commit crimes against children should be imprisoned, absolutely, but they deserve the right to a fair trial.
Society is harmed in the process not that liberals give a ***t about any harm to society.
Ironically, the whole concept of "harm to society" is a liberal (and very stupid) idea. Modern "conservatives" are stupid enough to (1) agree with it and (2)imagine they invented it.
What basic rights does a pedophile deserve that don't include them living a secluded life permanently behind high walls away from the objects of their desire?
All of them, unless and until they commit a crime.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by MargoKey
I am really behind the times. While reading the news about a Tennessee man who pasted pictures of three minors onto pictures of nude adult women, I found out that in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court (******** v. Free Speech Coalition) said that certain sections of the Child Pornography Prevention Act were overbroad and unconstitutional. One of these sections is 2256(8)(B), which includes "virtual child pornography." In the case of virtual child pornography, no children are actually harmed and, therefore, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime!
I am absolutely outraged right now. If the perpetrator is using pictures of real children, even if it is unknown to the child and family, how can that child not be harmed? Is the child only harmed if the image is disseminated?
Please, if there are any constitutional lawyers out there, explain this to me. As for anyone else, am I alone in my outrage?
I just don't understand what this world is coming to when it is all right to use children as sexual objects.
The object and purpose of the child porn laws is to prevent children from being harmed, used and exploited by adults. "Virtual" porn does not "harm" children- even if the image is real but not disseminated there was no "harm" done to the child. I personally would not have a problem with somebody beating the hell out of the pervert but has he broken a law? I don't think so.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd
The world is becoming more perverse and the children are the targets. Liberalism is just great isn't it? Evidence the ACLU defending NAMBLA.
NAMBLA- as well as anybody else has the right to free speech. Just because they are not popular does not give the state the right to jail them for merely advocating something. Personally I despise them but if I were a lawyer, I would defend their right to free speech.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evidence the ACLU defending NAMBLA.
