Prisoners and voting... (1 Viewer)

[Cookie182]

Framework removing coercion is a good thing indeed. Deals with the issue of maturity regarding consent. Which is why age of consent is 16. I don't think there should be any penalty for the possession of child porn, but I do think there should be a massive penalty for child rape.

Don't know how that penalty should work.

Not an opinion I'd voice in public.

 

[loquasagacious]

Framework removing coercion is a good thing indeed. Deals with the issue of maturity regarding consent. Which is why age of consent is 16. I don't think there should be any penalty for the possession of child porn, but I do think there should be a massive penalty for child rape.

Don't know how that penalty should work.

Removing coercion is a great thing.

However I think your example fails a pretty fundamental test. If a child can not consent to intercourse then how can they possibly consent to being filmed whilst engaging in intercourse (or other sexual activities)?

Unless you are differentiating between intercourse with a child and rape of a child? In which case I think you need to address the issue of maturity and ability to form consent. Taking advantage of someone who can not form consent is surely a case of coercion, for example looking at contract law; a contract can be void if one party took advantage of the other (position, power, knowledge, exploitation of the handicapped, etc).

 

[Planck]

Not an opinion I'd voice in public.

Just shows out of the two of us who has the larger cojones.

 

[Slidey]

You know who I am you thoughtful bastard.

I had my doubts because your name is as boring as a... plank.

But now I realise it may well be a nod to the founder of quantum mechanics. I salute you!

 

[Planck]

i had my doubts because your name is as boring as a... Plank.

But now i realise it may well be a nod to the founder of quantum mechanics. I salute you!

aren't you supposed to be unsw.

Aren't you?

Neil>?

 

[sthcross.dude]

However I think your example fails a pretty fundamental test. If a child can not consent to intercourse then how can they possibly consent to being filmed whilst engaging in intercourse (or other sexual activities)?

Possession of child porn should be legal, as opposed to production.

Of course children did not consent to being filmed in any meaningful way, but there is no benefit to be derived from locking people up from merely viewing it after the fact.

 

[spyro14]

Possession of child porn should be legal, as opposed to production.

Of course children did not consent to being filmed in any meaningful way, but there is no benefit to be derived from locking people up from merely viewing it after the fact.

If people are dissuaded from watching it, then people are also dissuaded from making it.

 

[sthcross.dude]

If people are dissuaded from watching it, then people are also dissuaded from making it.

Absolute nonsense.

Do some research on the subject. Child pornography is overwhelmingly not produced commercially for profit. It is not profitable because it is illegal, so copyright laws obviously cannot be enforced and it will simply be traded and pirated.

Almost all of it is produced by sick individuals who do it for their own sick reasons. Most disturbingly, in a high proportion of cases, the abuser is the child's father. We can all agree that this is deplorable. But the best way to protect the children is to go after the producers.

As disgusting as people that view the material are, there is no benefit in going after them and prosecuting them.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

.As disgusting as people that view the material are, there is no benefit in going after them and prosecuting them.

What about at least attempting to rehabilitate them? Is that possible?

 

[Josh22]

What about at least attempting to rehabilitate them? Is that possible?

no

 

[Iheartgays]

no

Agree, what a stupid question.

 

[yoddle]

This post was inspired by the 'Euthanasia for Life Prisoners?' post. It got me thinking about the rights of those in jail, which reminded me of a discussion we had in Modern last year about whether people in jail should be allowed to vote. I got into an argument with my friend about voting as a basic right. I don't necessarily think it is. I think it's an *important* right, but not a fundamental right. It's essentially participation in society, an attempt to have a say, and if someone is in jail for murder or rape, they've obviously indicated that they can't adhere to the basic moral principles which are expected of each person within society. They are, in fact, detrimental to society.

So, should they get to vote? What should the circumstances be?

EDIT: (raised by loquasagacious) The corrolary to the OP's question is of course whether former prisoners should have a right (requirement in Australia) to vote?

This question was also raised during this particular Modern class. We had a Swiss exchange student at the time, and he told us that in Switzerland, if you have EVER been in prison, you can't vote.

In a democracy I reckon voting is a fundamental right. How else would they have any say in the governing of the country?

In a sense it gives them an opportunity to vote against the laws of the government that put them in prison.

Just say Australia became a police state, I would want an opportunity as a political prisoner to be able to vote (that's if elections were miraculously held in said police state, but you get my drift.)

We may be able to take some rights for granted now, but we shouldn't begin taking them away in case of possible future developments as they are meant to safeguard against eventualities like that.

 

[Uncle]

Prisoners could face the same discrimination as Aborigines in the days of White settlement.

 

[Josh22]

Prisoners could face the same discrimination as Aborigines in the days of White settlement.

not really, but we can hope

 

[kokodamonkey]

They should not be able to vote.
A criminal shows no respect for the law, those who enforce them, and those who create them to better society. Why should they get to choose?

exactly!

 

[brittanica-]

i think the death penalty should be brought back in

 

[beaf]

i think the death penalty should be brought back in

+1

 

[brittanica-]

Possession of child porn should be legal, as opposed to production.

Of course children did not consent to being filmed in any meaningful way, but there is no benefit to be derived from locking people up from merely viewing it after the fact.

i literally almost was sick from that commment
if i found out who you were not only would i shoot you in the face id also make sure you lived and put you in jail where i would tell every detainee to rape you several times everyday until you got out

peace

you make me sick

 

[jonathancollins]

Possession of child porn should be legal, as opposed to production.

Of course children did not consent to being filmed in any meaningful way, but there is no benefit to be derived from locking people up from merely viewing it after the fact.

you sicken me.

so your tryin to tell me people who are sexualy abusing children should not be put in jail.

you have lots of issues you sick old paedophile.
i suggest you go see a counclor.

if you have child pron in oyur possesion i think the feds should come to your house and lock ur pedo ass up

 

[yoddle]

Calm down guys.
What sth.cross dude said was quite sensible from the point of view of limiting the amount of child porn available. You're never going to catch all the people that view child porn, and throwing random porn users in jail isn't going to stop production nor bring and end to the whole phenomenon. Child porn consumers are already aware of the formal and informal consequences of the discovery of their secret, and it does not deter them from watching it.

I don't think the possession of child porn should be legal but I do think that the largest portions of funds and resources should go into apprehending producers as opposed to consumers.