Lesson learned today (long post)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/28/2005 10:44:48 AM · #57

Originally posted by SDW65:

Yes I will be willing to give up some freedom to put sh*t's like that under the jail and protect our children. And don't be fooled no one has true freedom in any country.

A very depressing story. But some of the reactions make me sad too.

We do already have systems in place to put people in jail when they have committed a crime. If you want to make it easier to find people to be found guilty of a crime, or increase the severity of their sentence, that would have serious implications for society. It would also increase the risk that one could be innocent but found guilty, and/or the severity of the consequences. Before advocating increased criminal sanctions without due regard to legal process, consider whether you would be willing to be that one innocent who is convicted because of the increased sanctions?

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

04/28/2005 11:26:08 AM · #58

"We do already have systems in place to put people in jail when they have committed a crime. If you want to make it easier to find people to be found guilty of a crime, or increase the severity of their sentence, that would have serious implications for society."
[[[Look, when I can get a frickin felony offense with several years of jail time for file-swapping a song. I don't think seeking much tougher sentences on those that harm little children in the most horrendous of ways.

Frankly, if it doesn't change you are going to see society decide that the current governing solution is unjust and take matters into their own hands.

And frankly, that's a very good thing IMHO if/when the government ceases to protect the people. After all, The People are the government.

If you look at our criminal profiles, almost all criminal offenders are repeat offenders. That says something.
]]]

Part of the problem is sympathy toward evil...

We provide cable TV, Xboxes, Pell Grants to criminals. And often, those members of society who come from the same impoverished regions and bust their but in school and work hard to contribute to society find no scholarship money for them. It's pretty sick and demented if you ask me. Why a criminal can get Pell grants for a free college education while those who've worked to earn such reward receive none.

And if you want to talk about "rehabilitating" the criminals. Let me put forth another issue....hard workers realizing there is no reward and reaching a point where they become criminals. And if you think we have problems with stupid criminals with 80 I.Q.s. Well, it's a lot worse when a 150 I.Q. genius goes bad.

But our whole society has become this sympathy case for those who don't work, don't contribute, are irresponsible and damage society. While at the same time treating good hard working law abiding citizens like crap.

Furthermore, we are not talking about injust increases. In fact, what we are pointing to is that swapping a song has become a much bigger legal crime than molesting a child. We want it brought back into scope. Harm a child and suffer dire consequences. As opposed to a $150,000 and 5 yrs in jail for downloading a $15 album that's overpriced. What we're saying is the sentence should compare to the crime.

*shrug*

Sorry, i'm just ranting...i'll stop now.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/28/2005 11:46:02 AM · #59

Laurie, sorry to hear about this. People suck.

If they won't, or you can't get them to remove the link. Change what is at the link :)

Maybe a photo of a sign that says "You are a sick %$@! and the FBI is on the way to your house, have fun in jail!"

My guess is they'll remove the link pretty quick.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/28/2005 01:17:23 PM · #60

Originally posted by theSaj:

Look, when I can get a frickin felony offense with several years of jail time for file-swapping a song. I don't think seeking much tougher sentences on those that harm little children in the most horrendous of ways.

If that was the case, I would be upset too. I think that you are exaggerating somewhat, however. I agree with high sentencing for child molesters - what they do scars people for life. The only cases we tend to hear about are ones where, on a one paragraph summary of a multi-week trial, the press can highlight what appears to be a lenient sentence. There are lots of appropriate sentences passed down (being de rigour, they are not newsworthy nowadays). Where there is leniency, there will often be a reason. But one that is probably not newsworthy. So, if you look into it, rather than believing the press hysteria (anyone watch Monkey Dust?), you may not need to be so outraged. As for one CD - you should pay damages amounting to about $15. Make one CD available to a million others free of charge, then yes - you will be sued/penalised for causing the record company a big loss. I don't think that you will find many cases of outlandishly long sentencing though (if you do - it will be in the US where judges are not independent and sentencing is influenced by voters, campaign funders and a jury - but reform of the US judicial system is a different issue).

My comment is aimed more at those who think that the criminal law should (or does) extend to people who look at pics with an ulterior purpose. There are no laws against that, and there shouldn't be for the reasons others have suggested: it is distasteful to most people (me included), but not illegal in itself. Nor should it be made illegal somehow.

Some of the more extreme reactions are to kill/castrate those who have any connection with the websites in question. I just wanted people to think before they speak like that: if you spread the net too far and make it catch too easily, then you will catch innocents. That could be any one of us. If death and maiming are the penalties of choice, then there is not much going back. You could be that innocent, as easily as the next person. Live/die by the sword, maybe, but not for me.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

04/28/2005 02:06:31 PM · #61

"I think that you are exaggerating somewhat"
[[[Bro, I truly wish I was...the DMCA is a harsh (and in the opinion of most historical law analysts an unconstitutional law). This is why so many have opposed it vehemently.

DMCA penalties (of course the judge does not have to prescribe the max sentences listed here but is within his right to do so)

"In addition, it is a criminal offense to violate section 1201 or 1202 wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. Under section 1204 penalties range up to a $500,000 fine or up to five years imprisonment for a first offense, and up to a $1,000,000 fine or up to 10 years imprisonment for subsequent offenses. Nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions are entirely exempted from criminal liability. (Section 1204(b))."

(which, making a mix tape as many DJ's do and selling it for $5 can be constituted as such a violation, hardly seems fair to punish 5-10yrs and/or $500,000-$1,000,000. But we let sexual offenders and rapists out often in < 5 yrs.

//www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
]]]

"Where there is leniency, there will often be a reason."
[[[The problem is often in parole. A sexual offender outside of that behavior is often a functioning member of society. So within the confines of prison they seem non-violent and of minimal threat. So when the prisons are over-crowded they're released on parole. (They seemed normal and well behaved in prison...much more so than the average cellmate.) But that's because they're not around 'children'.]]]

"There are no laws against that, and there shouldn't be for the reasons others have suggested: it is distasteful to most people (me included), but not illegal in itself."
[[[Excepting those that are of graphic nature.]]]

"I just wanted people to think before they speak like that: if you spread the net too far and make it catch too easily, then you will catch innocents."
[[[No, but to me, if they ahve such photos, etc... it is worthy enough cause to a) get a search warrant b) review prior convictions c) if prior convicted search computer files/accounts and d) if paroled and/or on probation rescend such grant.

04/28/2005 02:17:43 PM · #62

Originally posted by theSaj:

DMCA penalties (of course the judge does not have to prescribe the max sentences listed here but is within his right to do so)

the judge will not give you a $500k fine and 5 years for a single CD. That was the exaggeration.

Originally posted by theSaj:

The problem is often in parole.

How much experience do you have with parole issues? Parole is not just handed out freely. People do take these things seriously.

Originally posted by theSaj:

No, but to me, if they ahve such photos, etc... it is worthy enough cause to a) get a search warrant b) review prior convictions c) if prior convicted search computer files/accounts and d) if paroled and/or on probation rescend such grant.

Yes - that is what does happen. Except that prior convictions are not the justification for getting records (that is the search warrant). Reasons why it does not happen more often - there are not enough resources in the world to track evrything all of the time. Efficient methods are used (eg honey trap sites) and the worst cases prioritised. But if someone finds your computer stuffed with illegal pics in a discerning jurisdiction, you will be investigated and prosecuted (Gary Glitter anyone?).

Apologies - this line is slightly off the point: I intended to merely comment on some of the more reactionary elements in play here - with which I strongly disagree.

edit and mispost: typo hell

Message edited by author 2005-04-28 14:22:46.