Well, yes, we generally do wait until someone commits a crime before we start punishing them. That’s sort of essential to the practice of justice, isn’t it?
Very often people are kept tabs on or even punished if there is sufficient reason to think they will commit a crime.
And I was just using KGS’s “little people” term. Blame him! 
Cite? Certain steps in preparation for committing a crime are in of themselves crimes, but I don’t understand what you are talking about or how that could work in any western country.
Aren’t police officers called in a lot to investigate and keep an eye on “suspicious characters” even if they aren’t doing anything technically illegal? I would imagine this would take place but on a larger scale.
I’m no legal expert at all so please don’t infer that I’m an idiot if I’m wrong about something. (I’m not saying anybody is, I’m just saying I don’t want it to turn into a vitriolic argument.)
I’m not here to argue, I’m just here to have a discussion.
Yes, I was thinking along the lines of people like Joe C., Kid Rock’s diminuitive sidekick who died of celiac disease at age 26.
Ok, let me ask you this. How do you feel about the pediatrician whose office was burned by hyper-vigilant protesters who misread her job title and thought it said “pedophile”?
I don’t know why Pete Townshend accepted a caution (which appears similar to the American Nolo Contendere plea, meaning you’re not admitting guilt but you’re not going to fight prosecution) except, perhaps, to make the whole sorry business go away. The only hard evidence found against Townshend was his credit card number on a child pornography site. They found NO kiddy porn at all in his possession. Now…think about it. If he’s so STUPID to use his real name and credit card to look at kiddy porn, how could he be so smart as to hide his kiddy porn collection in a manner that can never be found?? He can’t. Ergo, he’s not a pedophile.
Townshend made a colossal mistake, but the punishment he received was fully undeserved. This is just one symptom of the Pedophile Witchhunt, which has destroyed more innocent lives than those who actually deserve justice. Just ask the McMartin family.
Some years ago, the Delaware police formed a database of gang members and alleged drug dealers who were suspected of committing crimes, but not actually convicted or even accused of any actual wrongdoing. Naturally, the public outcry against this Orwellian tactic was extreme, and (I believe) the website was pulled almost immediately. (I’m having difficulty locating a cite, so forgive me if some of the details are off.)
Phlat Phoot, are you from the U.S.? It would help to know which country you are from.
Well they are called in a lot and they log those calls but I don’t think they actually go and check them out unless they have reason to believe a crime might’ve occured or is about to occur. Checking every tip about “suspicious” people wouldn’t really fly that well with the public, especially in Florida .
So could a person with “delayed puberty” act in pornograhic videos as long as they’re of legal age? Would those videos be considered child pornograhpy?
Yeah, I’m from the United States. I’m interested in how it’s handled all over the democratic world though. It just seems odd to me that something like that could happen and, legally speaking, nobody else would think something strange was going on, especially with how strict child molestation laws are in some places of the world.
Umm… I’m guessing you’ve never been to a porn store? I’d guess 10-15%, maybe more, of all legal US pornography is done with women of legal age that have a significant amount of prepubescent features either naturally or artificially.
Except statuatory rape laws only consider whether someone is competant to give consent or not, not how they “look”.
If I follow you, you’d make it illegal for someone who looks prepubescent to have sex, even if they’re in their 20s? Why? The issue is ability to consent, and only the ability to give consent. As long as someone is not incompetant to give consent (due to age, intoxication, mental retardation, etc), then they can give consent.
Why is that so hard to understand? And why should the police have any business monitoring the boyfriend of a youthful looking adult?
Eighteen and nineteen year old males are very popular in gay porn, but with males at least there are certain features of prepubescent male anatomy that are hard to reproduce. Even without hair adult genitals look different than those of a child.
Child molestation laws in the U.S. are far more restrictive than any other place in the world. The average Age of Consent worldwide is closer to 15 or 16, not 18. In Canada, the AoC is 14; in Mexico, The Netherlands, and many South American & Asian countries, it’s twelve. That’s right…TWELVE!!! :eek:
Regarding child pornography, once again it’s a situational thing. In most Middle Eastern countries, all types of pornography are illegal (in fact, any sex outside of marriage itself is illegal in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and homosexual sex is punishable by death.) Japan had no child pornography laws at all until 1998, while showing ANY pubic hair at all is considered extremely taboo and is illegal in Japan.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are separate laws regarding sex with children age 13-18 than those 12 and under (generally speaking, since the AoC in some states is under 18, and every state has it’s own laws.) Indeed, the strict definition of “pedophile” refers to someone who is primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children – the word for someone attracted to pubescent teenagers is “hebephilia”, or “ephebophilia”. However, those words aren’t as headline-grabbing as “pedophile”, so the media has co-opted the word to cover both pedophiles AND hebephiles, which is both legally and psychologically inaccurate.
There are no laws whatsoever forbidding sex with an 18+ person who physically resembles a minor.
Exactly, because, by the logic in the OP, minors who look older would be exempt from child pornography and molestation laws. And that’s not the case.
Well, there’s Guantanamo, though many people disagree that there is “sufficient reason” in those cases.
Legally speaking, yes. However, the public outcry against such videos would be massive, which is why they don’t exist (AFAIK).
Sort of an apples/oranges comparison, since the Guantanamo detainees are not American citizens, and therefore not subject to the civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. (Whether or not that is appropriate, of course, is the fuel for a whole 'nother debate.) John Walker Lindh, the infamous “American Taliban”, was not held at Guatanamo specifically because he is an American citizen.
Hey, this is interesting. I just looked up the IMDB profiles of four “delayed puberty” celebrities (Emmanuel Lewis, Gary Coleman, Josh Ryan Evans and Joe C.) and apparently, none of them ever married. Hmm…
Wasn’t Coleman’s the result of kidney disease?
The poster to whom I was responding was speaking of Western countries, not just the US. (There have been citizens of Western countries, such as the UK, imprisoned at Guantanamo.) And the poster to whom the poster I was responding was responding was speaking about arbitrary detention in general, so the citizenship of the detainees isn’t at issue anyway.
I wish I could find the cite but a few years back there was a local guy who was on probation for some minor (in age) related sex crime. (I think it was something like exposure, but I don’t remember). His probation was revoked because he was found to have a notebook of pictures from magazines that had pictures of children. The pictures were just clippings from ads, not child pornography.
The case really bothered me. Granted he was probably a scummy pedophile but there’s nothing illegal about possessing pictures of children that aren’t pornography. Heck, there’s not even anything illegal about whacking off to those pictures as long as you don’t act any further. If something like magazines photos can get him off, maybe it’ll help the twisted guy channel his impulses, I dunno.
I’ll have to dig around and see if I can find the case. I remeber thinking it was a prime example of being prosectued for thoughts, not actions.