Submitted by Early_District_2796 t3_1184cas in rva
gentleghosts t1_j9fdrij wrote
someone who is not interested in children does not download 5000+ photos and 600+ videos 🤢 I’m not sure how the forensic psychologist came to their conclusion but i’d love to hear more. Plenty of people experience childhood SA unfortunately but they do not take to looking at child pornography in adulthood. Trying to play it like the two are connected in this case is disgusting.
LostDefectivePearl t1_j9fungb wrote
Even if they are connected, it doesn’t matter. If his trauma is so deep he’s tempted to download kiddy porn, GET A THERAPIST INSTEAD
gentleghosts t1_j9fxdp2 wrote
10000% this, that response just seemed like a deflection and way to not take accountability. Using victimhood to justify being a pedo is moreso what I meant by the disgusting factor - not that the two couldn't be connected. Dude definitely needs to deal with his past if this is how it's showing up for him as an adult.
ttd_76 t1_j9h6j6h wrote
The recidivism rates for sexual offenses is pretty low in general. I'm sure this is partly due to under-reporting but that's still what the data says.
The biggest red flag risk factor here is the sexual abuse as a child. But we don't put people in jail for 9 years for that, we give them therapy and it usually helps. We also don't punish people for being poor, or having drug addictions which are correlated risk factors.
If you have no history of prior inappropriate behaviors, no alcohol or drug issues, no mental health/personality problems, and no socioeconomic factors working against you, the evidence points at you not being a big risk.
Basically, most people can and do look at and fantasize about all kinds of weird shit and still never act on it. And they can even stop looking at that weird shit if the future consequences are dire enough or they get treatment for their addiction.
gentleghosts t1_j9haj5k wrote
this is a weird argument. not having a legal history means nothing. I could go out tomorrow and murder someone. by your own argument since I have no history of behavioral issues, drugs, alcohol whatever, I should be viewed as low risk? I know murder is a different crime that can’t be compared to possession of CP so use whatever crime you want. argument still stands. possession of CP is a crime that enables a very serious problem. as long as there is demand, minors will be in danger. someone down below already responded to you about trafficking so i’m not going to repeat what they said again.
these reports from 2018 show that 76.5% of offenders had little or no criminal history. so should that many people be given leniency because they hid this side of themselves from the world and didn’t get caught until they did?
There’s a huge line in the sand if your fantasies include children being used, in any degree. I’m not sure what exactly you’re arguing here. Yes these people need help, yes these people should be punished. those two things are not mutually exclusive.
ttd_76 t1_j9hcsk0 wrote
>There’s a huge line in the sand if your fantasies include children being used, in any degree.
Based on what? We don't punish people for having fantasies.
You wondered how the forensic psychologist could reach the conclusion that he was not sexually attracted to children and was a low risk to reoffend. The answer is that is a not an unreasonable conclusion based on his history and best statistical evidence.
Whether he should get 9 years regardless of potential for recidivism simply because of the shittiness of the crime is different issue.
gentleghosts t1_j9hecge wrote
well he acted on his fantasies when he downloaded thousands of files. in that case, we do punish. that’s the line where fantasy turned harmful to others. i’m still really unsure what your angle is with all of this. you are literally arguing in support of a pedo, why? do you know him? someone like him? like what’s your goal here?
The likelihood of reoffending is irrelevant. it already happened once, he is already a problem. also to the psychologist point, explain to me why someone who is not sexually attracted to children would download that many photos/videos. if you find yourself curious about something, you definitely don’t have that much on hand. the only other reason I can see someone in possession of that many files is because they are the one circulating it.
ttd_76 t1_j9hysm4 wrote
I have no stake in this other than that the sentencing for non-production child porn is stupid.
And since you cited a USSC report to me, please consider that USSC also thinks the sentencing structure is stupid.
The enhancements that USSC talks about in that report as being problematic are the exact ones that were applied here, as they are in most cases. They're not truly "enhancements." They function instead as Draconian minimum sentencing guidelines.
The whole PROTECT Act is part of Bush era policy and attitudes that spawned the "super predator" and things like that. It came about because the USSC guidelines were considered too soft and because the Supreme Court had struck down an earlier child porn bill. So congress basically overrode the USSC and required them to add those "enhancements" because while the alleged purpose was to separate the mythical superpredator types from the oops I didn't realize I had this Traci Lords on VHS, the reality is they didn't care and felt like all pervs are just rapists-in-waiting.
>explain to me why someone who is not sexually attracted to children would download that many photos/videos.
Well one obvious reason would be that they are running a child porn business. And if that's the case, Maher should be put in jail for much longer than 9 years. But he should also be charged for that and not this.
But maybe he is fixated on it in a non-sexual way because of what allegedly happened to him as child. Or maybe he really is sexually attracted to children, but that is not a crime, nor should it be.
I don't know the facts of this case. It could be he is a shitty guy and maybe he has done sketchy stuff that he has not been charged for. He could be a total shitbag. I only know him like most people do, he served me some drinks and we chatted a bit a few times.
But I believe he pled guilty to basically ONE single count of receiving (not distributing) child porn. And I believe the person he "received" it from was himself via putting a file on drop box and then downloading it like how everyone uses drop box (just not for porn).
And that alone pretty much gets him or anyone else 9 years, regardless of any other circumstance. That is what is fucked up.
If he did something horrible enough to warrant 9 years, then he should be charged and have to plead specifically to whatever that was. Charge him 1,000 counts of possessing child pornography. But you shouldn't be able to charge someone with one count of receiving child pornography and put them away for 9 years.
gentleghosts t1_j9i59hz wrote
oh baby, the hill you are choosing to die on tonight is sus.
2012 ussc suggestions to congress would still pin johnny to the mat. the enhancements they suggest in one of the three areas is based on type of content, volume in possession, age of the victims, types of misconduct depicted, and how they’ve organized and maintained the collection over time.
You clearly do not see child pornography possession as an issue in any amount so i’m done engaging with you. Possession is what enables the market to thrive, endangering countless children of all ages. It’s a really fucking weird thing to not be bothered by and I really hope you have no children of your own with viewpoints like these.
ttd_76 t1_j9ig7z7 wrote
>2012 ussc suggestions to congress would still pin johnny to the mat. the enhancements they suggest in one of the three areas is based on type of content, volume in possession, age of the victims, types of misconduct depicted, and how they’ve organized and maintained the collection over time.
What USSC has always suggested is that these enhancements need to be revised because virtually everyone gets hits with them. It means that the 5 year minimum is pointless because no one actually ever gets the minimum.
It's basically technology. In 1985, if you had 15,000 pirated songs in your possession, you were seriously into it in a way that was not just like personal hobby use. By 2005, it was pretty common to have that many songs. You can just hop on a torrent and get thousands of videos or images, legal or illegal. You just download a motherlode of stuff and watch/play/listen to what you want.
There is a minimum 5 year penalty for receiving child porn. There is no minimum for possession. But if you did not produce the porn, but you have it, you must have somehow received it. So everyone starts at 5 years.
And because no one is perusing everything and collecting one item at a time, and just downloading big torrents or whatever, they automatically get stuck with several enhancements. So now the real minimum is not 5 years, it's closer to 10. This is all stupid.
>oh baby, the hill you are choosing to die on tonight is sus.
Maybe. But I guess I will die on this hill along with Ketanji Brown Jackson and the majority of criminal judges in the US.
exposechefjohnny t1_j9josz0 wrote
Once again comparing apples to giraffes here. Downloading pirated music is not equal to downloading photos and videos of children being exploited and abused. And everyone is aware that people who like to exploit other people often put themselves in positions of power, like Catholic priests and IDK maybe CRIMINAL JUDGES?
I wish I knew who you are @ttd, I sure as fuck hope you don't work with children.
ttd_76 t1_j9kbmbr wrote
This came up in the Ketanji Brown Jackson case. Go back and rewatch the hearings or re-read some of the articles that were written at the time.
Most judges don't follow the sentencing guidelines and typically deviate by around 60 months. In the majority of cases where KBJ was accused of being soft on child porn for giving light sentences, she was following the recommendation of the probation officer and the prosecuting attorney.
So just consider which is more likely-- that the majority of judges and attorneys including KBJ are secret kiddie diddlers or that the sentencing guidelines are fucked and Josh Hawley is a flaming asshole?
exposechefjohnny t1_j9i9hog wrote
Ok I'll give you this one thing- being sexually attracted to children (while absolutely abhorrent) should not be/is not illegal. But once you cross over the threshold into obtaining child pornography you are DIRECTLY contributing to the exploitation, trafficking, abuse and rape of children.
lynyrdslingered t1_j9hfpu5 wrote
So Johnny contributing money (I assume these videos aren’t free but I have no idea) to people producing videos of literal infants being assaulted isn’t that bad? This is one of the worst takes ever. Are you the guy that employed this asshole for a few years after he got caught? Or you are just a big advocate for child porn addicts ?
exposechefjohnny t1_j9heh3o wrote
How do you know that chef Johnny doesn't have any of those other factors? Are you close to him?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments