The Law Should we be punished for evil desires?

[Madas]

Gee thanks for clearing that up lmao

The film has a moral/message, that's the point. And that point is that if you start punishing people for things they MIGHT do, rather than what they actually do, everything goes downhill very quickly.

I haven't seen the film but the fact that you are defending people who use sex dolls is enough for me to not bother with this debate any more .
It's beyond weird
The fact that the people who use these things can't see that shows that they have difficulty separating fantasy from reality . Hence a greater propensity to commit an act of crime .
Peace out

 

[Chief]

I call bullshit on your bullshit.

Plenty of crimes are “victimless”.

Who is a paedo victimising by looking at pictures they got off a Usenet group? They aren’t contributing to demand, the images are free.

 

[ShanDog]

I call bullshit on your bullshit.

Plenty of crimes are “victimless”.

Who is a paedo victimising by looking at pictures they got off a Usenet group? They aren’t contributing to demand, the images are free.

False equivalent - a child WAS harmed in that scenario.

 

[ShanDog]

I haven't seen the film but the fact that you are defending people who use sex dolls is enough for me to not bother with this debate any more .
It's beyond weird
The fact that the people who use these things can't see that shows that they have difficulty separating fantasy from reality . Hence a greater propensity to commit an act of crime .
Peace out ✌

We're talking about child pr0n, not outrage pr0n fella. Have a good one.

 

[Chief]

False equivalent - a child WAS harmed in that scenario.

The act of downloading harmed nobody.

 

[Chief]

False equivalent - a child WAS harmed in that scenario.

Now, speeding tickets. If I do 150 on a freeway at 1am, who am I hurting? If I speed through a school zone at 3PM but hit nobody, who have I hurt? If I walk around with an unregistered, concealed pistol, who am I hurting?

Point being we have plenty of crimes that involve potential harm, but mostly involve no harm.

 

[ShanDog]

The act of downloading harmed nobody.

No, but the material was created through harm, and despite your claim that there's somehow no demand because it's free, that's not the case, and by outlawing the ownership of child pr0n, it disincentivises people from making it and harming children as a result.

Now, speeding tickets. If I do 150 on a freeway at 1am, who am I hurting? If I speed through a school zone at 3PM but hit nobody, who have I hurt? If I walk around with an unregistered, concealed pistol, who am I hurting?

Point being we have plenty of crimes that involve potential harm, but mostly involve no harm.

Again, that's a false equivalent. It is illegal to speed because of the risk associated with an accident, i.e. an unintentional consequence. Someone alone in their bedroom with a child sex doll doesn't accidentally sexually assault an actual child.

 

[Chief]

So it IS correct to contemplate risk in the creation of laws.

The creation and sale of paedo dolls does involve risk. It is a different risk to going 5 k’s over the speed limit, but it is a risk.

Until this risk is investigated and mitigated through, say, treatment and monitoring of the paedophile then the risk is undefined and not worth it. Policy should reflect that.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I'm disgusted by the outraging public decency laws! If there is one more person who feels the same way then whoever played a part in those laws being enacted should be locked up.

It is an offence at common law to outrage public decency. The act must be done in a place where at least two members of the public might see it. Where the act is plainly indecent and likely to disgust and annoy, the jury are entitled to infer such disgust and annoyance without evidence that anyone was disgusted or annoyed​

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100257618

It's interesting. According to the case notes pleading guilty to the charge was likely the sole reason it stands as part of his conviction

https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/files/documents/2021-04/sentencing-remarks-dpp-v-pusey.pdf

The offence of outraging public decency

While this matter has had a relatively short procedural history, there have nonetheless been a number of hearings in this Court and in the Magistrates’ Court at the committal stage,where the focus has been on what is now Charge 2 on the indictment, committing an act that outrages public decency, and whether that charge is the most appropriate to reflect your conduct in the aftermath of the collision.

The initial argument submitted on your behalf was put on two bases. First, that the charge does not validly exist in Australia and secondly, that if the charge does exist in Australia, the facts in this instance simply do not fit the charge. In written submissions presented at the Magistrates’ Court, the prosecution provided a brief history of the common law in Australia and its organic development from the law of England. I will not repeat those submissions in detail in these sentencing reasons, however having reviewed the relevant authorities and legal commentaries, accept for the purpose of your plea of guilty to the charge,that the offence continues to exist in Australia...

...Thus it was submitted on your behalf that while the offence may exist in Australia, a review of the relevant authorities demonstrates that those cases involved very different conduct and that the reference to the conduct in those cases as being lewd, obscene or disgusting does not describe the conduct here. In my view the argument put on your behalf does have some merit, however by your plea of guilty, you have accepted that the charge is also capable of incorporating your conduct. As such it was put, and I accept, that your plea of guilty to this charge has brought to a conclusion a very difficult case...

By the way, Pusey's conduct that resulted in the 'public indecency' charge starts on page 3 of that document. I'll admit that any sympathy I personally had for him pretty much vanished at the end of reading what he actually did and said.

 

[Chief]

I'll admit that any sympathy I personally had for him pretty much vanished at the end of reading what he actually did and said.

And that's at the end of a lifetime of that sort of behaviour.

 

[Evolved1]

So it IS correct to contemplate risk in the creation of laws.

The creation and sale of paedo dolls does involve risk. It is a different risk to going 5 k’s over the speed limit, but it is a risk.

Until this risk is investigated and mitigated through, say, treatment and monitoring of the paedophile then the risk is undefined and not worth it. Policy should reflect that.

Are you proposing mandatory treatment and monitoring of non-offending pedophiles?

 

[Frank Bunn]

It's interesting. According to the case notes pleading guilty to the charge was likely the sole reason it stands as part of his conviction

By the way, Pusey's conduct that resulted in the 'public indecency' charge starts on page 3 of that document. I'll admit that any sympathy I personally had for him pretty much vanished at the end of reading what he actually did and said.

I've never had any sympathy for the bloke. He seems like a twat and his behaviour was deplorable. But 'offending public decency' is an archaic charge motivated by disgust and anger rather than laws around whether his behaviour led to harm of the victims.

He didn't cause the accident or deaths. As a non-participant in the accident he wasn't required to stay at the scene or render assistance.

He didn't upload any of his footage to social media - while another witness who also filmed the scene, did upload their footage to a social media platform, but was not charged with any offence.

 

[Frank Bunn]

And that's at the end of a lifetime of that sort of behaviour.

Richard Pusey is Australia's George Floyd?

Pond Life Matters.

#PLM

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I've never had any sympathy for the bloke. He seems like a twat and his behaviour was deplorable. But 'offending public decency' is an archaic charge motivated by disgust and anger rather than laws around whether his behaviour led to harm of the victims.

He didn't cause the accident or deaths. As a non-participant in the accident he wasn't required to stay at the scene or render assistance.

He didn't upload any of his footage to social media - while another witness who also filmed the scene, did upload their footage to a social media platform, but was not charged with any offence.

All true. And according to the judge, the charges would not have stuck if Pusey didn't actually plead guilty to 'offending public decency'. He even said that Pusey's lawyer's argument that "the facts in this instance do not fit the charge" had merit.

I don't know why Pusey plead guilty to that charge when his lawyer was arguing for dismissal. I think that as soon as a guilty plea is entered the court has to go ahead with conviction. They could suspend that part of his charges of course, but I don't know the workings of our legal system all that well.

 

[ShanDog]

Until this risk is investigated and mitigated through, say, treatment and monitoring of the paedophile then the risk is undefined and not worth it. Policy should reflect that.

That's fair; however, making it a controlled item doesn't necessarily equal making it a banned, illegal and (most of all) CRIMINAL item to own.

 

[Seeds]

I call bullshit on your bullshit.

Plenty of crimes are “victimless”.

Who is a paedo victimising by looking at pictures they got off a Usenet group? They aren’t contributing to demand, the images are free.

They are contributing to demand Though. People don’t just supply this material for money. They also provide it for power and status amongst other pedos. If people are consuming it, even for free, then the suppliers are benefiting and will be incentivised to keep doing it.

 

[Seeds]

So it IS correct to contemplate risk in the creation of laws.

The creation and sale of paedo dolls does involve risk. It is a different risk to going 5 k’s over the speed limit, but it is a risk.

Until this risk is investigated and mitigated through, say, treatment and monitoring of the paedophile then the risk is undefined and not worth it. Policy should reflect that.

is it a risk though?

its more of an indicator of who is a higher risk to commit a child sex abuse crime compared to the general population rather then increasing the risk of such a crime in itself. I.e. It’s not the act that is adding to the risk.

people Used this indicator risk back in the 2000s to treat muslims at airports quite differently compared to the rest of the population. were you ok with that?

going 5ks over the speed limit does actually increase the risk of accident and injuries. And the penalty of that is just a fine. no court cases or conviction.

 

[Chief]

is it a risk though?

If it's unknown, it's a risk.

 

[Frank Bunn]

So it IS correct to contemplate risk in the creation of laws.

The creation and sale of paedo dolls does involve risk. It is a different risk to going 5 k’s over the speed limit, but it is a risk.

Owning a car involves a risk that you might break the speed limit.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I call bullshit on your bullshit.

Plenty of crimes are “victimless”.

Who is a paedo victimising by looking at pictures they got off a Usenet group? They aren’t contributing to demand, the images are free.

Seriously? The child in the images has been victimised.

You think trafficking in child pornography is a victimless crime?

WTF?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Moving away from the sex doll example. Here is another:

Families outraged over Pusey sentence

Family members of four police officers killed in a horror crash on the Eastern Freeway have reacted with outrage at the sentence for a man who filmed and mocked them during their last moments.

www.news.com.au

been given 10 months jail and labelled the most hated man in Australia for being a heartless bastard. The articles say this isn’t enough and he should get more jail time?. But why?

I don’t get what crime he committed? He didnt cause their deaths. He wasn’t found guilty of refusing to help as it appears they died instantly.

he fled after being arrested. So he should be charged for that. But I don’t get why he got 10 months jail?

anyone explain?


it seems like another violation of basic Human rights here because People just don’t like it.

I thought the charge was offending common decency (that’s just on recall could be wrong) for the act of filming the dying moments of the police officers without consent and uploading them. I suppose in a way it is like revenge pr0n (in the uploading of footage without consent). To me 10 months seems reasonable- I expect he will get s**t kicked out of him in prison too.

Edit sorry read rest of thread and appears I was incorrect about him uploading it.

 

[Chief]

Owning a car involves a risk that you might break the speed limit.

But you are licensed and registered, and subject to penalties if you break the rules.

 

[Frank Bunn]

But you are licensed and registered, and subject to penalties if you break the rules.

But you don't get punished for just owning the car, in case you might one day break the law.

 

[Chief]

But you don't get punished for just owning the car, in case you might one day break the law.

You get punished for driving an unregistered vehicle without a license.

 

[Evolved1]

How about sheep. Would you throw people in jail for ******* a blow up sheep?