Can The Paedophile Now Appeal On Thought Crimes
DIZZY wonders: “How long before the paedos appeal?”
Well isn’t ‘intent’ a funny thing? As the news yesterday showed, the courts have ruled that if you constantly download, watch and share material from the Internet of loony Islamist training for jihad; making bombs; blowing themselves and others up; or watching some poor sodding journalist have his head hacked off with a great machete then it’s fine and dandy if you can say that you’re just a fantasist and would never actually dream of carrying out such things yourself.Does this now mean that all those men convicted of downloading the violation of children can appeal their convictions on the line of ‘look, I know I had videos of 40 year old men buggering 4 year olds, but honestly m’Lud I wouldn’t dream of ever doing it myself, it’s just a bit of fantasising really! I know I shared them but I never dreamed that I might be encouraging such things by doing so’? Of course it doesn’t and there would, quite rightly, be a huge public outcry if it did. Yet that rather flippant example perfectly expresses the sheer absurdity of the argument being put forward that these lads were guilty of mere thought crimes and were not a potential danger.
I mean, it’s not like one of them ran away from a home and left a note saying he was off to fight Jihad abroad now was it? Oh wait, what am I saying, one of them did do that. The judgement that he was just a young impressionable mind and so was a pure innocent corrupted sounds a bit like a celebrity who did porno early in their career and then has to say they were ‘young and stupid’. What next, a person appearing in a video containing extreme violence defending themselves by saying that they were just being youthfully stupid, whilst another who watches it just promises everyone that it’s just for research whilst he mixes the paroxide?
Anorak is less certain. Watching and thinking are not the same as doing. If you can be jailed for what you think, what then?
Posted: 14th, February 2008 | In: Twitterings, War On Terror Comments (3) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- percy stilton on I’m A Celebrity: Quitter Katie Price Wanted To Die With Jedward
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Katie Price To Marry ‘Dumped’ Alex Reid In Jungle
- lynney babe on I’m A Celebrity: Katie Price To Marry ‘Dumped’ Alex Reid In Jungle
- yampster on X Factor: Jedward, John & Edward Grimes, Are Voted Out At Last
- Magalie on X Factor: Jedward, John & Edward Grimes, Are Voted Out At Last
February 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Colin
If there was no evidence of them making bombs or making their own anti-West propaganda then I don’t think they should be charged (but they should be monitored by the security services).
I mean I have books on serial killers and a couple of Poppy Z. Brite novels - but I’m definitely not going to go out and murder someone (although maybe it is a sign I have repressed hostility or something???).
Borderlines are always difficult to police - so it’s good to keep debating exactly where the lines need to be drawn.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Karen. Thats the Irony. Why should these potential terrorists who fantasise about being terrorists be let off? This judge who let them off has now opened up a whole new debate about thought crimes. While these fanatics will no doubt get compensation. Other terrorists will be let off and Preachers of hate will get new licence to brainwash young muslims into fighting a jihadist war of terror. They should of been jailed as should the paedophiles who watch their material.
aw15.2.525
February 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Watching isn’t the same as doing. But people who watch porn mostly are doing things aren’t they???
If someone fiddled with themselves while watching a child being abused that makes them a paedophile.
Because the law mostly can’t prove they did - it has to make the child porn itself (making, distributing, buying, viewing) illegal.
And I think they’re right to. Any adult who looks at a child’s misery out of ghoulish curiosity probably needs a reality check.