 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17657 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
 Posted: 28-10-2006 19:29 Post subject: Child Pornography Link To Abuse Of Children Unclear |
 |
|
|
| Quote: | Source: University of California, Davis - Health System
Date: October 27, 2006
Child Pornography Link To Abuse Of Children Unclear, Forensic Psychiatrist Says
If someone downloads child pornography onto their computer, is that an indication they're a pedophile, or might become one in the future?
That question is gaining the attention of forensic psychiatrists as never before, thanks to recent legislation making possession of Internet child pornography a federal crime constituting an unlawful transmission of information across state lines.
"A large number of cases are going to court and attorneys are calling us, wanting to know what is the reason this person has child porn on their computer," said Dr. Humberto Temporini, a forensic psychiatrist at UC Davis Health System. The answer is often unclear -- not least because Temporini and his colleagues are still in the process of developing a standardized way to evaluate the risk, or lack of it, posed by someone who collects kiddie porn on the Internet.
The stakes are high. Dr. Charles L. Scott, associate professor of clinical psychiatry at UC Davis Health System, described the challenge facing forensic psychiatrists this way: "How do you assess the possession of Internet child pornography without the risk of offending, without the risk that the person will actually go out and molest a child?"
Such questions will be addressed at a panel discussion Sunday at the Marriott hotel in downtown Chicago dubbed "Internet and Child Pornography: The Impact on Forensic Assessments." The panel, part of a four-day conference sponsored by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, will be chaired by Temporini, an assistant clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. Scott, chief of the department's Division of Psychiatry and the Law, is part of the panel.
The AAPL conference, an annual event for forensic psychiatrists, seeks to cover the major issues facing the profession. Because Internet porn is still a relatively new phenomenon, Scott said there is a dearth of studies on its relationship to sexually criminal behavior. As a result, Scott will address the issue of Internet child pornography by taking a look backward.
According to Scott, two federally commissioned studies, one in 1970 and the other in the 1980s, failed to find a strong correlation between viewing erotica and acting out sexually. He said that the decriminalization of pictorial pornography in several northern European countries in the 1960s and 1970s was not accompanied by an increase in the frequency of rape. Case studies of sex offenders -- which Scott describes as potentially limited because they depend on self-reporting -- have also not shown a clear link between pornography and the commission of sexual crimes.
A study of 11 pedophiles found that the majority did not begin viewing child pornography "until after they had started their offending activity against children," Scott said. And in a 1991 study of 160 adolescent males charged or convicted of sex crimes, 70 percent reported that pornography played no role in their illegal activity.
Scott said the nature of the pornographic material is a key factor. Extreme porn depicting sadism, bestiality and the like may be "part and parcel" with sexually criminal behavior. But he said it's difficult to say that any type of pornography causes someone to commit a sexual crime.
"Now, does it foster such behavior or continue it?" asked Scott. "That hasn't really been studied."
Both Scott and Temporini said one thing is clear: The Internet has made it easier for large numbers of people to view child pornography.
"The ease of use and sense of privacy is greater," Scott said.
According to Temporini, people caught with child porn on their computers typically claim that the material was sent to them unsolicited.
"You can accept that if it's just one or two images," Temporini said. "But if it's 200 or they've created a special folder for the images, then such excuses aren't very believable."
One thing that muddies the water a bit, Temporini said, are so-called "vigilantes," people who collect child porn through the Internet as a way to flush out pedophiles. Temporini said forensic psychiatrists can determine a person's "pedophile interest" by subjecting them to a battery of tests regarding their sexual history and other issues. But he said it remains difficult to predict what someone possessing Internet pornography might do to a child.
"The tests don't tell us much about that," Temporini said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061027153001.htm
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17657 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 02-11-2006 13:20 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Internet And Child-Pornography Link To Abuse Of Children Unclear
31 Oct 2006
If someone downloads child-pornography onto their computer, is that an indication they're a pedphile, or might become one in the future?
That question is gaining the attention of forensic psychiatrists as never before, thanks to recent legislation making possession of Internet child-pornography a federal crime constituting an unlawful transmission of information across state lines.
"A large number of cases are going to court and attorneys are calling us, wanting to know what is the reason this person has childporn on their computer," said Dr. Humberto Temporini, a forensic psychiatrist at UC Davis Health System. The answer is often unclear - not least because Temporini and his colleagues are still in the process of developing a standardized way to evaluate the risk, or lack of it, posed by someone who collects kiddeporn on the Internet.
The stakes are high. Dr. Charles L. Scott, associate professor of clinical psychiatry at UC Davis Health System, described the challenge facing forensic psychiatrists this way: "How do you assess the possession of Internet child porngraphy without the risk of offending, without the risk that the person will actually go out and molest a child?"
Such questions will be addressed at a panel discussion Sunday at the Marriott hotel in downtown Chicago dubbed "Internet and ChildPornography: The Impact on Forensic Assessments." The panel, part of a four-day conference sponsored by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, will be chaired by Temporini, an assistant clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. Scott, chief of the department's Division of Psychiatry and the Law, is part of the panel.
The AAPL conference, an annual event for forensic psychiatrists, seeks to cover the major issues facing the profession. Because Internet porn is still a relatively new phenomenon, Scott said there is a dearth of studies on its relationship to criminal behavior. As a result, Scott will address the issue of Internet child-pornography by taking a look backward.
According to Scott, two federally commissioned studies, one in 1970 and the other in the 1980s, failed to find a strong correlation between viewing ertica and acting out sexualy. He said that the decriminalization of pictorial porngraphy in several northern European countries in the 1960s and 1970s was not accompanied by an increase in the frequency of rape. Case studies of sex-offenders - which Scott describes as potentially limited because they depend on self-reporting - have also not shown a clear link between pornogrphy and the commission of sexualcrimes.
A study of 11 pedphiles found that the majority did not begin viewing child-pornography "until after they had started their offending activity against children," Scott said. And in a 1991 study of 160 adolescent males charged or convicted of sexcrimes, 70 percent reported that porngraphy played no role in their illegal activity.
Scott said the nature of the porngraphic material is a key factor. Extremeporn depictingsadism, bestality and the like may be "part and parcel" with sexualy criminal behavior. But he said it's difficult to say that any type of porngraphy causes someone to commit a sexual-crime.
"Now, does it foster such behavior or continue it?" asked Scott. "That hasn't really been studied."
Both Scott and Temporini said one thing is clear: The Internet has made it easier for large numbers of people to view childpornography.
"The ease of use and sense of privacy is greater," Scott said.
According to Temporini, people caught with childporn on their computers typically claim that the material was sent to them unsolicited.
"You can accept that if it's just one or two images," Temporini said. "But if it's 200 or they've created a special folder for the images, then such excuses aren't very believable."
One thing that muddies the water a bit, Temporini said, are so-called "vigilantes," people who collect childporn through the Internet as a way to flush out pedophiles. Temporini said forensic psychiatrists can determine a person's "pedphile interest" by subjecting them to a battery of tests regarding their sexual history and other issues. But he said it remains difficult to predict what someone possessing Internet porngraphy might do to a child.
"The tests don't tell us much about that," Temporini said.
###
UC Davis Health System is an integrated, academic health system encompassing UC Davis School of Medicine, the 577-bed acute-care hospital and clinical services of UC Davis Medical Center, and the 800-member physician group known as UC Davis Medical Group.
Contact: David Ong
University of California, Davis - Health System
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=55323
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflovestone Paddington - peace be upon Him
Great Old One Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Total posts: 1348 Age: 45 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 02-11-2006 16:30 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ramonmercado wrote: | | Quote: | Internet And Child-Pornography Link To Abuse Of Children Unclear
31 Oct 2006
If someone downloads child-pornography onto their computer, is that an indication they're a pedphile, or might become one in the future?
That question is gaining the attention of forensic psychiatrists as never before, thanks to recent legislation making possession of Internet child-pornography a federal crime constituting an unlawful transmission of information across state lines.
"A large number of cases are going to court and attorneys are calling us, wanting to know what is the reason this person has childporn on their computer," said Dr. Humberto Temporini, a forensic psychiatrist at UC Davis Health System. The answer is often unclear - not least because Temporini and his colleagues are still in the process of developing a standardized way to evaluate the risk, or lack of it, posed by someone who collects kiddeporn on the Internet.
The stakes are high. Dr. Charles L. Scott, associate professor of clinical psychiatry at UC Davis Health System, described the challenge facing forensic psychiatrists this way: "How do you assess the possession of Internet child porngraphy without the risk of offending, without the risk that the person will actually go out and molest a child?"
Such questions will be addressed at a panel discussion Sunday at the Marriott hotel in downtown Chicago dubbed "Internet and ChildPornography: The Impact on Forensic Assessments." The panel, part of a four-day conference sponsored by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, will be chaired by Temporini, an assistant clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. Scott, chief of the department's Division of Psychiatry and the Law, is part of the panel.
The AAPL conference, an annual event for forensic psychiatrists, seeks to cover the major issues facing the profession. Because Internet porn is still a relatively new phenomenon, Scott said there is a dearth of studies on its relationship to criminal behavior. As a result, Scott will address the issue of Internet child-pornography by taking a look backward.
According to Scott, two federally commissioned studies, one in 1970 and the other in the 1980s, failed to find a strong correlation between viewing ertica and acting out sexualy. He said that the decriminalization of pictorial porngraphy in several northern European countries in the 1960s and 1970s was not accompanied by an increase in the frequency of rape. Case studies of sex-offenders - which Scott describes as potentially limited because they depend on self-reporting - have also not shown a clear link between pornogrphy and the commission of sexualcrimes.
A study of 11 pedphiles found that the majority did not begin viewing child-pornography "until after they had started their offending activity against children," Scott said. And in a 1991 study of 160 adolescent males charged or convicted of sexcrimes, 70 percent reported that porngraphy played no role in their illegal activity.
Scott said the nature of the porngraphic material is a key factor. Extremeporn depictingsadism, bestality and the like may be "part and parcel" with sexualy criminal behavior. But he said it's difficult to say that any type of porngraphy causes someone to commit a sexual-crime.
"Now, does it foster such behavior or continue it?" asked Scott. "That hasn't really been studied."
Both Scott and Temporini said one thing is clear: The Internet has made it easier for large numbers of people to view childpornography.
"The ease of use and sense of privacy is greater," Scott said.
According to Temporini, people caught with childporn on their computers typically claim that the material was sent to them unsolicited.
"You can accept that if it's just one or two images," Temporini said. "But if it's 200 or they've created a special folder for the images, then such excuses aren't very believable."
One thing that muddies the water a bit, Temporini said, are so-called "vigilantes," people who collect childporn through the Internet as a way to flush out pedophiles. Temporini said forensic psychiatrists can determine a person's "pedphile interest" by subjecting them to a battery of tests regarding their sexual history and other issues. But he said it remains difficult to predict what someone possessing Internet porngraphy might do to a child.
"The tests don't tell us much about that," Temporini said.
###
UC Davis Health System is an integrated, academic health system encompassing UC Davis School of Medicine, the 577-bed acute-care hospital and clinical services of UC Davis Medical Center, and the 800-member physician group known as UC Davis Medical Group.
Contact: David Ong
University of California, Davis - Health System
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=55323
|
|
I'm presuming you didn't type this out yourself. The spelling here is incredible! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Rrose_Selavy Exquisite Elemental
Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Total posts: 1940 Location: Stranded in Sub-Atomica Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 02-11-2006 16:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yes the spelling is terrible.
Aside from the issue of whether the receiver of child porn is more likely to offend in reality - or be classified as a paedophile in clinical terms - surely the other issue in assessing the gravity of the offence , is that the download of the material represents demand and demand produces a market and a market requires fresh material and the consequences of that for further abuse by suppliers.
We also have the crime of Pseudo-child pornography - In the UK at least, if you use photo shop to "invent" an image or scene involving children you are also committing an offence.Yet presumably no actual real life abuse has taken place. I can only assume this as been criminalised because it is very difficult to tell between a photoshopped porn and the actual recording of a real event or person. - and it prevents a get out clause for those caught with it.
-
-
-
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17657 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 02-11-2006 16:57 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Jeff
| Quote: | | I'm presuming you didn't type this out yourself. The spelling here is incredible! |
Yeah, I've seen that happen before even on otherwise professional sites. Software problem? Or could it happen in the copying process? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflovestone Paddington - peace be upon Him
Great Old One Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Total posts: 1348 Age: 45 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 02-11-2006 17:02 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Rrose_Selavy wrote: |
We also have the crime of Pseudo-child pornography - In the UK at least, if you use photo shop to "invent" an image or scene involving children you are also committing an offence.Yet presumably no actual real life abuse has taken place. I can only assume this as been criminalised because it is very difficult to tell between a photoshopped porn and the actual recording of a real event or person. - and it prevents a get out clause for those caught with it.
|
This makes me sound like I've a hard-on for Chris Morris with all these mentions, but this was fantastically sent-up in a Brass Eye sketch with some bod whose job it was to decide whether these 'invented' images were actually pornographic or art. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 20321 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 08:38 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Murder of April Jones 'proves porn link to sexual assaults'
Internet search companies such as Google came under pressure tonight to block child pornography after a children’s charity said that the sites “fuel the fantasies” of paedophiles who then sexually assault children.
By Martin Evans, Crime Correspondent
9:52PM BST 30 May 2013
As Mark Bridger was jailed for life for the abduction and murder of five-year-old April Jones, the NSPCC said there was a “worrying link” between his looking at indecent images online and the crime he went on to commit.
It called for “effective measures” to curb the ease with which extreme pornography and indecent images of children can be accessed.
Bridger’s laptop computer contained a cache of images of children being raped and abused. Police found a horror film in his video recorder paused at a violent rape.
Earlier this month, Stuart Hazell was jailed for the murder of Tia Sharpe, his partner’s 12-year-old-granddaughter. During his trial the Old Bailey heard that he had used his computer to search for terms including “violent forced rape” and “incest”.
Bridger, like Hazell, had no previous convictions for sexual offences. Both went from viewing indecent images straight to the worst class of offending. With no gradual escalation in behaviour, there was nothing to suggested they were a threat to children and to alert police.
Tonight Phillip Noyes, the acting chief executive of the NSPCC, said: “It seems Bridger lived in a fantasy world which included looking at child abuse images online.
“For some time we have been concerned about the growing number of these obscene images which are becoming more easily available and can fuel the fantasies of offenders like Bridger.
“This case points to the ever-growing evidence that there is a worrying link between looking at this vile kind of material and committing other serious sexual assaults. April’s death will hopefully lead to effective measures to stamp out this vile trade.”
Child protection charities say that web companies could introduce online warnings, threatening possible prosecution when users attempt to access explicit sites.
There have been calls for Google to introduce their “safe search” option as a default setting, which would automatically block hard-core pornography and make it far more difficult for children to access accidentally. The current default setting, “moderate”, does not.
John Carr, the government’s adviser on internet safety and secretary of a children’s charities coalition on the subject, has said: “Google can do more and should do more.”
Peter Davies, the chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), also warned of a link between extreme pornography and those who went on to abuse children.
He said: “The viewing of indecent images of children can lead to an escalation in offending, resulting in the offender committing contact child sexual offences.
"In other cases, such images will be viewed once contact offending has begun or even used by offenders as part of the process of grooming a child for abuse.”
He added: “The ongoing impact on the victim within those pictures must not be overlooked. On the internet these images are a permanent and very public record of contact sexual abuse, with the child continuing to be victimised every time that image is accessed.”
Bridger, who received a whole life tariff for April’s murder, had used his laptop to search for terms including “naked young five-year-old girls” and “pictures of naked virgin teens”.
He claimed in court that he had stored images because he intended to complain to the internet companies about the ease with which they could be accessed. 
But the jury rejected his explanation and the judge, Mr Justice Griffith-Williams, said he was in no doubt that Bridger was a paedophile who harboured morbid fantasies about young girls.
The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to charge Bridger in relation to indecent images, claiming it would not have been in the public interest.
It also emerged during the trial that he had twice recorded a rape scene from The Last House on the Left, a horror film which police believe he watched just before abducting and killing the schoolgirl.
...
Scott Rubin, the director of communications and public affairs at Google, said: “Google has a zero-tolerance policy on child sexual abuse content. We are members and joint funders of the Internet Watch Foundation, an independent body that searches the web for child abuse imagery and then sends us links, which we remove from our search index. When we discover child abuse imagery or are made aware of it, we respond quickly to remove and report it to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10090331/Murder-of-April-Jones-proves-porn-link-to-sexual-assaults.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WhistlingJack Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Total posts: 4296 Location: The Sewers of The Strand Age: 9 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 12:25 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rynner2 wrote: | | John Carr, the government’s adviser on internet safety and secretary of a children’s charities coalition on the subject, has said: “Google can do more and should do more.” |
Why? Google doesn't create these sites, nor does it host them. All it does it perform searches for terms entered into it. I'll bet most sites hosting images of sexual abuse aren't in the "visible" web anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 20321 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 13:00 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| WhistlingJack wrote: | | rynner2 wrote: | | John Carr, the government’s adviser on internet safety and secretary of a children’s charities coalition on the subject, has said: “Google can do more and should do more.” |
Why? Google doesn't create these sites, nor does it host them. All it does it perform searches for terms entered into it. |
Google is not a force of nature. It is a program made by people, and technically speaking it would not be hard to tweak the programming to reject porn sites. Certain search terms would ring alarm bells, and if the sites they turn up contain a high proportion of graphic material (photos or videos) then the alarm level would get higher. At some stage, perhaps, Google would simply respond with "No sites found that match your search terms." If that pisses off a few pervs, then all to the good!
At the same stage Google could alert human overseers - the process does not have to be completely automatic - who could (if a site is truly vile) contact the appropriate law authorities who could initiate action to get the site taken down, and its creators arrested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gwenar Grey Joined: 14 Nov 2012 Total posts: 25 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 13:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Rrose_Selavy wrote: | | Aside from the issue of whether the receiver of child porn is more likely to offend in reality - or be classified as a paedophile in clinical terms - surely the other issue in assessing the gravity of the offence , is that the download of the material represents demand and demand produces a market and a market requires fresh material and the consequences of that for further abuse by suppliers |
People who download child pornography, or seek it out on paid or free websites, should be charged with funding child pornographers, aiding and abetting, and child exploitation. People who create and/or view photoshopped child porn should be charged with child exploitation - because a real child is used in those photos. No one in that chain, from creator to provider to customer, is innocent of the act of child pornography itself.
On a note related to the topic... An FBI agent who had worked on violent crime task forces said that when he was a beat cop in the 70's they used to laugh about peeping toms because they're just harmless pervs, right? He really regrets that today, because now they understand peeping toms to be people who have fantasized about rape and are now escalating - testing their field skills, I guess.
People who seek out child pornography have fantasized about sexually abusing children. But how do you recognize escalation? You don't have to be a peeping tom to have access to children when they're vulnerable - they're vulnerable all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mythopoeika Boring petty conservative
Joined: 18 Sep 2001 Total posts: 8820 Location: Not far from Bedford Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 13:47 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rynner2 wrote: | | It is a program made by people, and technically speaking it would not be hard to tweak the programming to reject porn sites. |
You're partly right.
The problem is, the porn people have clever technology that can instantly spawn new pages and completely new websites.
So...it is possible to block entire domains and websites known to be porn websites, but the freshly-spawned websites/domains can sometimes end up being included in the indexing process. Also, some of these sites are linked by other sites that are ostensibly harmless (and thus included).
When I worked at a search engine company about 14 years ago, some of the guys there were talking about picture detection - if the search engine could detect bitmaps that were primarily flesh-coloured, then they could activate code that would reject the website from the indexing process. I don't know if Google could do something similar - technology like this does exist and they have some pretty smart people.
Another thing to be aware of... some of these illegal porn people are setting up apparently innocent websites, and burying the pictures away, deep inside the website. An ex-police acquaintance of mine told me about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 20321 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 14:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Mythopoeika wrote: | | When I worked at a search engine company about 14 years ago, some of the guys there were talking about picture detection - if the search engine could detect bitmaps that were primarily flesh-coloured, then they could activate code that would reject the website from the indexing process. I don't know if Google could do something similar - technology like this does exist and they have some pretty smart people. |
Face recognition software is pretty clever nowadays, and could no doubt be adapted in other ways to recognise porn.
But I like the idea of pissing off the pervs!  Destroy the market and it's not so essential to wipe out the actual porn sites, because very few people would be abe able to access them.
If a perv tries some dodgy search terms, Google (or whoever) could return a message saying "These search terms might apply to Pornographic sites, and [this search engine] does not return results for such sites. Do you wish to continue?"
Even heavier messages could be sent if the relevent government department was prepared to back it up. If the pervs knew that just seaching for porn might bring them, their computer, and their other online activity to the attention of TPTB, they might well give it up as too risky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| theyithian Keeping the British end up
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Total posts: 11649 Location: Vermilion Sands Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 14:33 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Gwenar wrote: | | An FBI agent who had worked on violent crime task forces said that when he was a beat cop in the 70's they used to laugh about peeping toms because they're just harmless pervs, right? He really regrets that today, because now they understand peeping toms to be people who have fantasized about rape and are now escalating - testing their field skills, I guess. |
A great many people fantasise about a great many things and a great poportion of those fantasies remain just that: fantasy.
Some men fantasise about rape; this does not make them rapists: some women fantasise about being raped; this does not mean they wish to become rape victims.
Humans are animals. We have involutary desires, whims and fetishes. The non-animalistic aspect of our being resides in the ability to temper this mental weather (when required) and act as moral agents whose actions take place and affect other people. This latter sphere is the juristiction of law; the former is a wholly private zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| OneWingedBird Great Old One Joined: 19 Nov 2012 Total posts: 418 Location: Attice of blinkey lights Age: 44 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 18:04 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Both went from viewing indecent images straight to the worst class of offending. |
or did one of them go from watching violent rapes in horror movies to the worst class of offending?
maybe he went bowling the night before and that set him off?
much that I loathe anything to do with noncing, it doesn't actually prove the porn was causal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gwenar Grey Joined: 14 Nov 2012 Total posts: 25 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-05-2013 19:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| theyithian wrote: | | Gwenar wrote: | | An FBI agent who had worked on violent crime task forces said that when he was a beat cop in the 70's they used to laugh about peeping toms because they're just harmless pervs, right? He really regrets that today, because now they understand peeping toms to be people who have fantasized about rape and are now escalating - testing their field skills, I guess. |
A great many people fantasise about a great many things and a great poportion of those fantasies remain just that: fantasy.
|
Yes, I agree, and I'm sure he would agree with you. His point was that the peeping tom is taking his fantasy out for a walk with a view to making it real. The sneaking around and looking in windows is a warning sign that an actual crime is pending.
But with a child molester or child rapist - how do you recognize an escalation... that the fantasy is no longer enough? You don't have to sneak around to be near children when they're vulnerable because they're always vulnerable, and they always need adults near them - some of those adults will be virtual strangers. But, you can't red flag teaching, signing up to coach little league, or leading the children's choir.
It was just a sad thought.
I personally think that anyone caught with child porn should be barred from working with children. That the person even needs a physical representation of his/her fantasies is an escalation. That the person can't recognize, or doesn't care, that a child was exploited to create the pornography tells you that they can't be trusted to take a child's feelings into account when it comes to sexual gratification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
