[Puffer Fish]

Do any of you find this prison sentence to be excessive?

A man was sentenced to 20 years in prison because police found pictures of child pornography in his mobile phone, and because he inappropriately touched a 10 year old girl. 5 years before police discovered the pictures, the girl had been at a pool party at the man's house. He picked her up to throw her into the pool water, but when he held her he used his hand and cupped it between her legs to throw her. He did this ignoring several requests to stop.

Police found thousands of images of nude children who appeared to be under the age of 18 on the man's mobile phone.

This man obviously has some severe issues and perversion problems, but is this prison sentence really appropriate and fair?

The inappropriate touching of the girl at the pool party is wrong and kind of cringe-worthy, and perhaps the man should be punished for that, but it does not seem like the obvious type of sexual assault that is anywhere close to rape. I think that act alone could only justify 9 months in prison at the very maximum (but probably much less).
I think mainly he is not being punished for that. Rather that act is just being used as insight into his character and confirmational additional evidence that he actually put those pictures on his phone. Perhaps the judge was thinking this actual physical behavior is suggestive that he might physically act on his perverse fantasies.

The man was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years. Meaning he could end up spending even more time in prison.

But back to the details of the pictures. In the mobile phone in electronic storage police found 27,781 photos of prepubescent children engaged in a sexual act and or posed nude, and 5,897 videos of children in various stages of nudity or engaged in sexual acts with adults or other children. Law enforcement was able to identify 10,719 children under the age of 18 in the images and 1,440 in the videos. Victims in the pictures were from Indiana, Georgia, Washington, Switzerland, Russia and Ukraine.

Sounds awful. But how responsible is this man for those children being victimized?
That seems to be a difficult moral question for us. Is he in some way responsible for what happened to those children? Should he be held responsible? Was he further victimizing those children by being one of hundreds of people who viewed their pictures in compromising sexual acts?

I think on top of that there's also the worry over burden of evidence here. That could be another issue. Yes, in this story the man admitted to the court that he had a problem and pleaded guilty to all charges. But wouldn't it be very easy to plant evidence on someone's mobile phone to frame a person of a crime? This isn't even something physical, it is electronic data. There is the possibility someone far away in a distant part of the world could use hacking techniques to move electronic data files into your phone. You might not even realize the pictures have been placed there.
Does anyone else see a problem with putting people in prison for 20 years for having what amounts to electronic data, that has been criminalized, in their electronic devices?


The name of the accused is Christopher Livingston, from North Baltimore. The judge was Joel Kuhlman.

"Pure evil": N. Baltimore man going to prison for child porn, by Marie Thomas-Baird, Sentinel-Tribune, March 6, 2022.

[Godstud]

In the mobile phone in electronic storage police found 27,781 photos of prepubescent children engaged in a sexual act and or posed nude, and 5,897 videos of children in various stages of nudity or engaged in sexual acts with adults or other children.

Totally appropriate, unless you choose to IGNORE this evidence.

Sounds awful. But how responsible is this man for those children being victimized?

FFS, he's more responsible than you think! If pedophiles like him weren't willing to pay for it, there wouldn't be a market for it! He totally responsible for what he's done and deserves his sentence AND MORE, for participating in this illegal activity.

Is he in some way responsible for what happened to those children? Should he be held responsible? Was he further victimizing those children by being one of hundreds of people who viewed their pictures in compromising sexual acts?

It's not a difficult moral decision. The answer is "YES!", to every one of your questions.

Why are you defending this human garbage?

[Igor Antunov]

Anyone with that many pictures is obviously spreading them, selling them, and with this guy making their own child abuse material. Yes, 20 years in a gulag would be fair. This is unfair because it's a tax payer funded prison where he gets three meals a day and full lodgings for free.

[Potemkin]

But back to the details of the pictures. In the mobile phone in electronic storage police found 27,781 photos of prepubescent children engaged in a sexual act and or posed nude, and 5,897 videos of children in various stages of nudity or engaged in sexual acts with adults or other children. Law enforcement was able to identify 10,719 children under the age of 18 in the images and 1,440 in the videos. Victims in the pictures were from Indiana, Georgia, Washington, Switzerland, Russia and Ukraine.

That's not just an 'interest', it's a fucking obsession.

Sounds awful. But how responsible is this man for those children being victimized?

Very. If there's no demand, then there would be no supply. The police long ago decided, quite rightly, that they can cut off the supply by cutting off the demand. They accomplish that by making examples out of guys like this.

[Puffer Fish]

FFS, he's more responsible than you think! If pedophiles like him weren't willing to pay for it, there wouldn't be a market for it! He totally responsible for what he's done and deserves his sentence AND MORE, for participating in this illegal activity.

I totally agree (if that is what you are arguing) that this punishment hinges on whether or not he actually paid for that material, and how much money.

But (playing devil's advocate here) I think we can also ask the question, exactly how likely is it these children would not have been abused if there were not paying customers? I mean, I suspect many of those children would still be abused even if there was no one paying to watch it.
The article said some of the abuse happened in the Ukraine and Russia, so those might be places where money would be more likely to fund an abuse industry.

I just want to see some actual math here. About how much money does it take to end up causing one of these abuse incident, on average, and so how much actually responsible is person who pays a certain amount of money for the abuse? How much money being spent exactly is equivalent to paying for one rape to happen? (There has got to be a way to view this statistically)

The punishment should fit the crime, right? Otherwise justice and fairness is being thrown out the window, and all this is being based on hysteria and emotionalism.

Or do they just assume that if this guy has a massive trove of this stuff, he must have paid a lot of money for it, and that is just easier for law enforcement to assume than having to track down evidence of how much money was spent?

That doesn't exactly sound so much like it is a "moral" law to me, although I realise that many people in this forum don't seem to believe that there is such a thing as morality and instead see every law in utilitarian terms. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony in bringing up the issue of morality in this situation)

[Puffer Fish]

If there's no demand, then there would be no supply. The police long ago decided, quite rightly, that they can cut off the supply by cutting off the demand.

I wonder how successful that strategy really is. I mean with any illegal possession, whether it be pornography or drugs.

Some of you will think this is an insane idea (and I am not supporting this stuff) but another idea might to have a registration of all the pornography that already exists, with registration numbers, to make sure new pornography is not being produced. That might actually end up being more effective at preventing the abuse.
It could still be made illegal, if you want, but just with much less punishment, since we would know that money was not funding more abuse.

(Isn't this same argument made for drug abuse? That if clean drugs are made available to addicts, they will not use dangerous drugs that are not subject to safety regulations)

[Skynet]

Hang him!

[Puffer Fish]

Just in case any of you are misunderstanding the story...

He briefly touched her there to hold her as he was throwing her into the water. She had a swimsuit covering that area, and there were several other people around watching at that party. What he did is probably not even the type of thing anyone would say anything about if the man had been her father.
Of course now in retrospect, knowing that he had all those pictures, what he did 5 years previously was reexamined in a different light.

The girl had a swimsuit on so the contact was not really directly on the private area. He only held her for a quick period of time, while picking her up and then throwing her into the water.
It would probably not even have been seen as definitely sexual, only a little suspiciously so, since it might have seemed to other people that were there at that party that he was only doing it to hold her up and throw her into the pool. There is a reason he did not face criminal charges for it until several years later.
The girl told her parents at the time but they did not think it was the type of thing that was worth going to the police with. The girl did end up making a report to the police about the incident a year after it happened. But still there were no criminal charges for it until many more years later.

Probably the reason he was told to stop had more to do with him throwing her into the water without her permission than how he was holding her, or more specifically wear his hand was.

[Godstud]

But (playing devil's advocate here) I think we can also ask the question, exactly how likely is it these children would not have been abused if there were not paying customers? I mean, I suspect many of those children would still be abused even if there was no one paying to watch it.

@Potemkin already addressed this pathetic argument.

Fuck that "Devil's advocate" shit. It's weaksauce, and an excuse to excuse the crime. Why are you defending this, or pretending there is some kind of injustice? It's not! He deserves 20 years, and more.

The article said some of the abuse happened in the Ukraine and Russia, so those might be places where money would be more likely to fund an abuse industry.

You punish the consumer as much as you do the distributor.

The punishment should fit the crime, right?

It does. His mass consumption of child porn fuels an illegal industry and builds demand. As @Igor Antunov says, he's lucky he'll get 3 square meals a day in a comfortable prison, and not the gulag he deserves.

This guy does not deserve defending and you defending him seems sick and perverse. Stop while you're ahead. It's fucking creepy. It's not good to get a reputation for defending pedophiles.

[Puffer Fish]

His mass consumption of child porn fuels an illegal industry and builds demand.

Can you show us some napkin paper math?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that paying for one rape deserves to be punished with 100 years of prison.
I presume you can agree with that, for the sake of this hypothetical argument.

Okay, how many rapes did this man pay for? Or what fraction of a rape? What fraction of a rape did everything he did contribute towards?

Just do some extremely rough calculations and estimation.

How much money is typically paid for one of those videos? How much money does it typically take to incentivize people in this dark industry to make one of those videos?
Are they the type of videos that were made by a professional industry, or is it just some creepy sick pervert who would do this anyway but doesn't mind making a little extra money on the side? Some of these sickos would make the video anyway, whether or not they could get any money for it or sell it to some other people.

When we refuse to take any look at the math, it seems we are abandoning all logic.

And how many of those videos were distributed for free? If you read the story, this guy was sharing away his pictures for free.
So your argument there wouldn't make so much sense, would it?

[Godstud]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that paying for one rape deserves to be punished with 100 years of prison.
I presume you can agree with that, for the sake of this hypothetical argument.

You are trying to compare something different to push a pro-pedophile agenda. Why?

And how many of those videos were distributed for free? If you read the story, this guy was sharing away his pictures for free.

So because he gave away exploitive pictures of underage children, it's OK? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU???

Possession of some elicit drugs is illegal, even if you give them away.

Nothing you are discussing here has to do with fairness or justice. You are trying to JUSTIFY this man's actions.

Fuck you, for that.

You are trying to justify exploitation with garbage.

[Rancid]

The weird shit @Puffer Fish tries to defend.