31–40 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not his first time. He was already a registered sex offender. Seems he didn’t learn his lesson.
I don't think the first time or not distinction should change your sentence by more than... let's say a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the first time or not distinction should change your sentence by more than... let's say a year.
He plead guilty to violating the terms of his probation, meaning he committed the crime knowing what the penalties would be.
I'm glad he didn't waste the court's time very much, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Normal human anatomy” is what you say if someone’s swimsuit slips in the surf, not when a sex offender sends a child pictures with the intent of forcing them to think about him sexually. The difference is intent: he knew it was unwelcome, and he didn’t care about that lack of consent. Now might be a really good time to think about why your first instinct is to defend the guy committing mid-level sexual assault rathe…
sends a child pictures with the intent of forcing them to think about him sexually That's entirely the result of a cultural construct. about why your first instinct is to defend the guy Trying to turn this into an "us vs. them" situation? I was just pointing out the huge cultural differences that exist in the world beyond Western puritanism.
I'll keep my western puritanism, thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He plead guilty to violating the terms of his probation, meaning he committed the crime knowing what the penalties would be.
How is this relevant to how long sentences should be? I'm glad he didn't waste the court's time very much, I guess.
Presumably his probation terms included "don't commit crimes" so the cyberflasher law is only relevant as it was the crime he did to break his probation
In some cultures, recipients of such pictures would probably just laugh and be at most confused. In others, the population is conditioned to be offended to the point of making it highly illegal. It doesn't even sound like this case is about mutilated or otherwise abnormally disturbing imagery; merely normal human anatomy.
how many pictures of genitals did you receive when you were 15?
Sadly, not terribly uncommon
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this relevant to how long sentences should be? I'm glad he didn't waste the court's time very much, I guess.
Because the crime he committed and primarily was sentenced for was breaking his probation. Presumably his probation terms included "don't commit crimes" so the cyberflasher law is only relevant as it was the crime he did to break his probation
Either way, if that's the case then this story is extremely misleading.
In some cultures, recipients of such pictures would probably just laugh and be at most confused. In others, the population is conditioned to be offended to the point of making it highly illegal. It doesn't even sound like this case is about mutilated or otherwise abnormally disturbing imagery; merely normal human anatomy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The Malicious Communications Act covers sending anything else with the intent of causing "distress or anxiety". So sending a photo of a steak to a vegan would get you 5 years in prison? I'm glad I don't live in the UK and I'm glad they left the EU so their idiotic laws won't poison EU laws.
> sending a photo of a steak to a vegan would get you 5 years in prison? Two issues. The question is what was your intent. Proving that it was sent with the intent of causing distress or anxiety is much harder in that case. For example I don’t know a single vegan who would react with distress or anxiety to the image of a steak. That is just nonsense. They would just say “yuck”. But if from the circumstances it is cle…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Normal human anatomy” is what you say if someone’s swimsuit slips in the surf, not when a sex offender sends a child pictures with the intent of forcing them to think about him sexually. The difference is intent: he knew it was unwelcome, and he didn’t care about that lack of consent. Now might be a really good time to think about why your first instinct is to defend the guy committing mid-level sexual assault rathe…
sends a child pictures with the intent of forcing them to think about him sexually That's entirely the result of a cultural construct. about why your first instinct is to defend the guy Trying to turn this into an "us vs. them" situation? I was just pointing out the huge cultural differences that exist in the world beyond Western puritanism.
You’ve been conspicuously non-specific about the other cultures you’re claiming would be okay with this, perhaps you could give an example and explain why it’s better?
In some cultures, recipients of such pictures would probably just laugh and be at most confused. In others, the population is conditioned to be offended to the point of making it highly illegal. It doesn't even sound like this case is about mutilated or otherwise abnormally disturbing imagery; merely normal human anatomy.