Unbelievable ! (358 views, 38 replies)
skilled
Sex offenders are going to keep on doing this if they can get away with it. A man putting on a dress shouldn't be a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
moderator
I dont understand. What is the problem? He was convicted for possession of 11 indecent photos of children. Thats NOT the same as engaging in lewd acts with minors. The sentence is supposed to be proportional to the gravity of the offence.
@JudgeDredd The problem is, even if he's not actually engaging, yet, which is not known either way, he's at least fantasising about it, that alone makes him dangerous. Normal men don't wank over child porn or fantasies of children.
It's people like him that create the demand/incentive for the scumbags that are taking and sharing photos like that.
@SimonM Thats not much of a legal argument. The concept of fantasy is a slippery slope since nearly everything in the entertainment, gaming and sex industry runs on that. The fantasy alone is not an indicator of future criminal conduct. Had this been the case, all players of GTA, including myself, would have been in prison for genocide over the number of NPC pedestrians we hit with a stolen car.
Need I also remind you the different aspects of fetishism? People engage in BDSM, tying each other with chains and whipping themselves to orgasm. Others take this even further doing the Dirty Sanchez or Golden Showers. Is that normal? Fuck no. Does this mean that these persons will go around in the real world crapping and pissing on each other? Hell no. At least if they did, we would have heard about it.
@JudgeDredd I wasn't addressing this as a legal argument and I agree with everything you just said. I'm no prude, but I don't get most fetishes and sex/pain stuff either, though I do find some of them amusing. However, those acts/behaviours are generally consensual between adults.
I stand by what I said.
@SimonM I will certainly grant you that. Consent is the difference between a crime and a hobby
@JudgeDredd I understand you are speaking from a legal perspective, but the legal system has it's flaws. The fact that this individual knew wearing a dress could possibly work in his favour in the form of leniency in sentencing, proves exactly that.
If he's not actually abused a child yet, it's most likely due to lack of opportunity.
@SimonM I am sorry but you got this all wrong. The presentation of the defendant played no factor at all in his sentencing. Even the article itself didnt make that allegation. They left you, the reader to reach that conclusion and they did it for sensationalism and to boost readership but they are really careful not to mention anything like that.
The real reason is there as clear as day. The article makes specific mention to preexisting mental disorders, which we all know have the capacity to count as mitigating factors in the sentencing process.
If you are suffering from insomnia, here is something that can enlighten you further on the specifics. From CPS, the sentencing guidelines for mental disorders:
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ove...
@JudgeDredd I don't believe I have got it all wrong. If you say I'm wrong on the legal side, fair enough, I'm not qualified to dispute legalities.
I believe I am right about his presentation though. Whether it works or not, depending on the judges and lawyers etc, there are increasing numbers of men who are putting on dresses to go to court with the knowledge that if they get the right judge, they will be treated differently and more leniently. Especially if the sentence could result in incarceration. They hope to be put in a womens prison.
5 years ago, you never heard of men turning up to court in a dress that weren't publicly wearing a dress and pretending to be a woman prior to their arrest. Now it is becoming increasingly common here and in the US for men, especially sex offenders, to try this. There's a reason they try it, sometimes it works for them. The downfall of ex Scottish PM, Nicola Sturgeon, was in part due to her approval of a 2 times rapist doing exactly that to go to a womens prison.
...
Read more
@SimonM No, you are right. There was too much confusion recently on what to do with gender dysphoria. After all there had been no precedent and there was a legal vacuum on the subject matter. But this approach may only work in the beginning. Once this is perceived as an attempt to unduly influence the sentencing process, I am quite certain that the exact opposite result will be reached. Besides, looks like the CPS is already proposing amendment to the guidelines. Lets see where this goes.
"Sticking on a dress and claiming mental issues would not be part of the defence of an innocent man."
You would be surprised at the extremes people go to defend themselves, innocent or not 
@Javi No arguments there but he is not the one responsible for that abuse. He is just a voyeur. You cant hold him liable for acts performed by others.
Let me put it to you another way. There are snuff videos that some people take pleasure in watching. Would you charge a person watching such a film for the murder of the person being killed in the film?
@JudgeDredd If you benefit from such products I would say you are part of a criminal conspiracy. There would be no market for this stuff if it weren't for pedophiles so they in a sense do victimize
@Javi But he is not benefiting from this. That would imply a financial benefit over the distribution of the images in question. In his case it looks like he paid for these images rather than made money off them.
In any case, best bet would have been to charge him as an accessory but even that is a really long shot. Proving criminal conspiracy would be impossible, taking into account that these abuses usually take place in the other side of the world and the conspiracy presupposes knowledge of all the parties involved.
@JudgeDredd I get what you're saying from a legal stand point but that's a very fine line which is why the laws for that need to be harsher imo. He's a potential predator who will do harm to children. If you're looking at child porn or snuff films because it sexually arouses you then you want to do that. How long until you do, that should be taken into account, if someone was looking at pics of my child being abused it's like they're taking part in it too. All these things and more need to be considered. How is that judge going to feel when he's back in his court room a year from now and this time it's not just pictures. Because it almost always starts with just pictures.
@galavion I am sorry but I respectfully disagree. The future potential is taken into account only when the perpetrator has already committed the crime in question. And it is taken into account to protect future victims from the perpetrator's proven propensity to violence.
Think of the possibility of abuse to that system you are suggesting. Currently you can procure a hacker to hack in someone's computer and plant child pornography and call the police. What you are suggesting is that the victim of this crime would be treated as a child abuser, when in fact he has absolutely nothing to do with that crime in question.
@JudgeDredd We will have to disagree on this one. This must be the lawyer in you talking and that's fine but this is the victims advocate in me talking, I've volunteered at enough victim shelters to know the aftermath of a verdict like this. The victims get lost and it's all about the suspect. This article is more about him then it is the victims because of the way he appeared in court which he might have done on purpose. And then we have the "he has mental issues" excuse from the lawyer. If he does than he needs to be in a hospital getting help and off the streets. Kids on pictures and vids are the victims with no justice. Abusers get to enjoy their pain with no consequences. The laws on this needs to change, examples need to be made. This to me is enabling
@galavion You are right. This is the lawyer in me talking. I like to see things clear and not subject to emotion. I understand the impact to the victims but stoning a man like that isnt the answer. After all, he is not the suspect that everyone is looking for. His appearance in court was no doubt a scheme to reinforce the existence of mental disorder. But judges werent born yesterday and they dont submit to court theatrics, nor rely on appearances or the word of the defense counsel. If mental disorders are invoked and they are undocumented, the judge will order a psychological assessment prior to sentencing. Because there is a significant difference in legal treatment between one who is psychologically fit and another who is not. The one who is psychologically disturbed is generally reacting to impulses deriving from his trauma and as such is also considered a victim. A victim that has perpetrated an offense but still a victim.
...
Read more
@JudgeDredd not responsable?
-he knows it illegal
-he knows children have been abused for him to be a voyeur
-99% sure he spreads the pictures to the next pedophile
the victims wondering whole life if they meet predators that seen their pics, once on internet.....
@🌞Suisen🌞 yes, he knows that the possession of child pornography's is illegal. Thats not the same as engaging in child abuse. If you buy class A drugs whose possession is illegal, should you be charged as the Drug Lord or as the user?
@JudgeDredd you can never compare apples and pears,
but you keep telling yourself that
@🌞Suisen🌞 I am not the one putting everything in the same basket. And I am not in the business of defending abusers. But there needs to be proportionality and a system that is based on rules, not gut feelings
@JudgeDredd gut feelings? he had the pictures theres no denial of it,
Im still suffering from abuse,
only thing is my abuse took place before internet,
if my feelings was involved they would all be chemically castrated FOR LIFE
@🌞Suisen🌞 Again, possession of illicit pictures is NOT the same as engaging in the illicit act. It would have been the same if, and only if, the person had ordered the perpetrators of the illicit acts to perform them for his pleasure.
@JudgeDredd all pedophile using childrens pics for their "benefits" create a demand
i really couldnt care less what you know about the law...
its a fact that pedophiles find eachother and share pictures and videos,
they know its illegal, they know children are scared for life
and they dont give a sh*t
and in my eyes, using the pics and videos is only one step away from being in the room
@🌞Suisen🌞 First of, I think you should calm down. I am not rude to you and I expect the same from you. If you cant discuss this in a civil manner, better not to discuss this at all.
The statement made by the judge is not one of legal significance or importance. If a demand exists for child pornography, then you would have to make a connection between each and every person in possession of child porn to the child molesters creating the images and the videos, and prove that the actions of the child molesters are on account of that demand and not on their own perversions. If you cant prove concerted practices, you have absolutely nothing.
@JudgeDredd Im calm, im not rude, im factual,
my respons was to your statement not the article
you saying theres no benefits?
the pics are the benefit
comparing abuse n snuff? point?
i actually tried to chase pedos online,
i reported a few, they keep moving sites, but i couldnt take it for long, the pics they shared 
@🌞Suisen🌞 "you can never compare apples and pears, but you keep telling yourself that"; "i really couldnt care less what you know about the law..." Thats rude, but that is my perception. If you say you didnt intend it like that, its water under the bridge.
I am afraid the pics are not the benefit. They are an ancillary byproduct but nothing more. They are not the cause of child abuse. People dont rape children to make pictures. They do that anyways.
The point between abuse and snuff films is pretty clear. They are both on identical circumstances. They both have perpetrators who commit heinous crimes and they both have an audience which takes pleasure from watching these acts. I made that parallel to demonstrate the absurdity of equalizing the act of viewing a murder to the act of the murder. So, if someone was caught in possession of a snuff film, do you think it would be fair if he was charged for the murder he viewed?
...
Read more
@JudgeDredd for those that share and distribute the pics, its about the pics, they benefit others doing the crime, and they know its a crime
snuff movies, how do you prove the audience know its real? there are fx movies looking real, making movies about murder isnt illegal
you cant compare the 2, saying its the same is just stupid...
beeing on a website observing isnt entrapment...
if i could save any child from being molested it be worth it
@🌞Suisen🌞 Exactly. Now you are seeing the correct perspective. The crime here is possession and potentially distribution of child pornography. This crime has a different gravity to the crime of child abuse and possession and distribution should be punishable accordingly, being a separate and clearly distinguishable offense from the other.
How do you prove snuff movies are real? Good question. Apply the same question to child pornography. How do you know the victim is underage? How do you know the victim is real and not an AI production? How do you know its non consensual, given the fact that certain cultures like the Japanese who consider rape as the ultimate fetish, actually have their entire porn industry revolving around that fantasy?
See? You can actually compare the two even with your questions attached.
Thing is, you cant really just observe. Eventually you will strike a conversation trying to get more evidence. ...
Read more
senior master
We'll see him again I'm sure, but next time he'll probably have raped a child or two I really hate to say that but it's true. I would love to know what those 5 past offenses are. This just pisses me off for a few reasons because it's been proven that these types are always repeat offenders. If he just gets a slap on the wrist now he'll think he can get away with doing it again or something worse.
Similar forum topics
- Unbelievable | Official Trailer | Netflix (4 years ago)
- The UnBelievable with Dan Aykroyd (Season 1) (5 months ago)
- The UnBelievable with Dan Aykroyd (Season 1 Episode 7) (3 months ago)
- A Reason, A Season, A Lifetime . . . (11 months ago)
- Sexy Beast (2024) (3 months ago)
master
As a sexually abused child. this makes me sick and furious,
Judge Nicholas Rowland should be ASHAMED !! WTDH??
nypost.com/2023/08/31/uk-pedophi...