A couple of days ago thé Queensland courts said yes. We should.
no harm against humans has been caused. The judge admits that. But he has punished the person with a 2 year prison sentence because his actions may increase his propensity to commit harm against people. He has no proof that it will by the way. Some may argue that having access to dolls may reduce the likelihood of those with evil desires towards children to actually commit acts against children. This is the argument used for Ecigarettes. I.e. They don’t encourage kids to take up smoking but instead provide an alternative for those addicted to tobacco And lead to reduce cigarette use amongst this group. I.e. the E cigarette argument applied to child like sex dolls suggests child like sex dolls may reduce the propensity of sex crimes against children not increase them.
But even if the judge is right and they do increase the propensity of child abuse. A crime is still Yet to be committed. Surely we can’t punish people for evil desires alone? We have to wait for an actual attempt of those evil desires to be acted upon as until they are we just have no way of knowing if the person would act upon them. And yes this person was put on automatic probation But he is now a convicted criminal and his reputation has been ruined. he is going to seriously struggle to be à part of the community going foward. Is this fair?
who else has not had desires to commit crime but not acted upon them? I would say almost all of us. As a kid I used to wonder what it would be like to rob a bank. Played cops and robbers and even created props. Drew plans of how it would be pulled off. Statistically such a person would have a higher probability to rob a bank then the population on average. Should I have been punished for exhibiting a desire to rob a bank And therefore a higher propensity to commit such a crime?
i think this is vast overreach by the state and a violation of human rights. Does anyone else agree? The state should never pénalise us for our desires. It’s none of their business.
Man released on supervised probation after child sex doll conviction
A Brisbane man is the first person in Queensland to be convicted and sentenced for the "heinous crime" of possessing "life-like" child sex dolls, following the introduction of new federal laws to combat child abuse offences.
www.abc.net.au
no harm against humans has been caused. The judge admits that. But he has punished the person with a 2 year prison sentence because his actions may increase his propensity to commit harm against people. He has no proof that it will by the way. Some may argue that having access to dolls may reduce the likelihood of those with evil desires towards children to actually commit acts against children. This is the argument used for Ecigarettes. I.e. They don’t encourage kids to take up smoking but instead provide an alternative for those addicted to tobacco And lead to reduce cigarette use amongst this group. I.e. the E cigarette argument applied to child like sex dolls suggests child like sex dolls may reduce the propensity of sex crimes against children not increase them.
But even if the judge is right and they do increase the propensity of child abuse. A crime is still Yet to be committed. Surely we can’t punish people for evil desires alone? We have to wait for an actual attempt of those evil desires to be acted upon as until they are we just have no way of knowing if the person would act upon them. And yes this person was put on automatic probation But he is now a convicted criminal and his reputation has been ruined. he is going to seriously struggle to be à part of the community going foward. Is this fair?
who else has not had desires to commit crime but not acted upon them? I would say almost all of us. As a kid I used to wonder what it would be like to rob a bank. Played cops and robbers and even created props. Drew plans of how it would be pulled off. Statistically such a person would have a higher probability to rob a bank then the population on average. Should I have been punished for exhibiting a desire to rob a bank And therefore a higher propensity to commit such a crime?
i think this is vast overreach by the state and a violation of human rights. Does anyone else agree? The state should never pénalise us for our desires. It’s none of their business.