<< Since it appears he did not pay for the images but rather searched for particular sites and downloaded them then it could be said did not finance the production of child exploitation material. He had no impact on the physical or emotional health of the children whose images he gathered. The case might even be made that getting his jollies online may well have meant he was a little less inclined to go after children in real life. >>

Now this is interesting. Child pornography is one of the really big no-nos of our society. People generally just get condemned for having anything to do with it. And yet you are making a case for it perhaps not being so bad at all under certain circumstances.

So….can you extend this sort of thinking to child molestation and pedophilia when it is right at the least serious end of the scale and involves nothing more than very fleeting touches through clothing, as per Harris with ‘A’?

Or would you consider anything and everything that falls under the banner of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching to automatically be really really serious?

No I wouldn’t condone the viewing of child pornography at all, just as I wouldn’t condone any of the actions for which Harris has been charged or convicted.

But I would very carefully put it in context and think about it the scale of severity, and not just outrightly condemn people for things at the light end of the spectrum.

Jay123, I understand your point. The danger we all face though when dealing with issues we are so passionate about is the loss of objectivity when argueing a point and dealing with others comments on the topic.

I've struggled with your posts a bit because they are about someone who I mostly respect even when I disagree with him while recognising that I've used some of the same types of posts when dealing with issues around DV and family law. I try very hard to maintain objectivity on that but when I see the usual lies and excuses trotted out to hide or support abuse my interactions becomes somewhat less nuanced.

Its a topic where I feel there are some lines that just should never be crossed but where I would like to see more serious thought put into aspects around prevention. Black and white in some parts but maybe needing less emotive debate in other aspects.

For instance what treatment programs are there for those with an orientation towards children and who want help? How would we as a society deal with someone who came out and admitted problem in that area and asked for help in managing it?

Areas around the viewing of images and the impact on real world behaviours, my gut feel is that for most its likely to provide a release and make them less likely to seek physical contact (but I could be wrong). But then most images are of real children some of whom may have been abused in the making of the image.

R0bert

SERIOUS-paRENTAL/NEGLECT=;ABUSE

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s4.html#parental_responsibility

I DID THINK..it would be an easy matter..to find that paRENTS HAVE A DUTY*...TO PROTECT;THE WELLBEING OF TEIR AND OTHER KIDS*[if parents put kids in danger;its their duty

with proper parenting..he stAYS
ON STAGE;..AND KIDS DONT GET..ON STAGE

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975..SECT 61B
Meaning..of parental responsibility

In this Part,..parental responsibility;in relation to a child,..means all the duties,..powers,r..esponsibilities and authority which,..by law,..parents have in relation to children.

BUT CHILD PERVERTS..OVERSEE..THE WRITING/OF THESE THINGS;SO THERE ARE LOOPHOLES.."parental responsibility"..in Part VII,..has the meaning given..by section 61B.

"parenting order"..has the meaning given by subsection 64B(1).

"parenting plan"..has the meaning given by subsection 63C(1).

"participating jurisdiction"..has the meaning given by subsection 90RA(1).

"post-separation parenting program"..means a program:

(a)..that is designed to help people to resolve problems..that adversely affect the carrying out\of their parenting responsibilities (including by providing counselling services..or by teaching techniques to resolve disputes);..and

(b) that consists of lectures,..discussions (including group discussions) or other activities; and

(c) that is provided by an organisation that meets the conditions in section 65LB.

"prescribed adopting parent" , in relation to a child, means:

(a) a parent of the child; or

(b) the spouse of, or a person in a de facto relationship with, a parent of the child; or

(c) a parent of the child and either his or her spouse or a person in a de facto relationship with the parent.

"prescribed child welfare authority" , in relation to abuse of a child, means:

(a) if the child is the subject of proceedings under Part VII in a State or Territory--an officer of the State or Territory who is responsible for the administration of the child welfare laws of the State or Territory, or some other prescribed person; or

(b) if the child is not the subject of proceedings under Part VII--an officer of the State or Territory in which the child is located or is believed to be located who is responsible for the administration of the child welfare laws of the State or Territory, or some other prescribed person.

R0bert, I'm not a huge fan of Derryn Hinch, try's to be the "human headline" but I did find it difficult to disagree with what he had to say on the subject at hand.

The question of penalty. I fully agree with fines for 'illegal parking', but these matters go beyond driving offences, and so they should.

Ludwig I took SteeleRedux posting as being a little sarcastic with this sort of comment;
<<The case might even be made that getting his jollies online may well have meant he was a little less inclined to go after children in real life.
So a $50 fine? $100 - $200? $200 - $300? $300+?>>
I didn't take any of it as being support for your line of argument.

In these cases the community expectation is jail time, nothing less. Harris as I understand it could have received 24 years maximum, which would have certainly seen him dead and buried, he got 5 years 9 months, a sizable discount on the maximum. Remember at the end of the day it was 12 counts, 12 guilty's, a unanimous decision by the jury. I have sat on a jury in a criminal case and that jury took its responsibility very seriously indeed, "what we decide here could mean jail time for people". When given that kind of responsibility a normal person does not take it lightly. In fact the court system was extreme in ensuring the accused got a fair trial, bent over backwards. As far as the jury was concerned, the instructions from the judge went to lengths, to make sure of that, eg "If you (the jury) should see anyone connected with this case in the street for example, do not approach them, do not speak to them etc etc.." Given the British justice system is much the same as ours, I don't think there has been the slightest hint of any miscarriage of justice in this matter.

Ludwig,

knew I shouldn't have come back to this thread..but...

I think I'm right in assuming you don't have children...especially young girls.

I'm wondering if you could imagine yourself as a parent...perhaps standing behind your innocent 8 year-old who's waiting for an autograph from someone like Rolf.

And you notice he's got his hand up her skirt while he's greeting her...and subsequently learned that he was in the habit of perusing titillating websites containing pics of "....of girls that were only a little bit underage"

(What!....your mitigations are amusing - "... girls that were only a little bit underage)

Would you still consider it "par for the course"...(let alone worthy of a $300 fine?)

I think if you were a father witnessing such an event, you'd probably be more likely to punch his lights out.

Those sentences were in light of Harris's serial offences. If he'd been found guilty of a one-off touching up offence (such as that of "A"), he probably wouldn't have received a jail sentence.

But, of course, his abuses were part of a "pattern of behaviour"...one which you appear determined to break down into isolated incidents with apparently no relation to each other.

Dear Ludwig,

With respect sir you have not given me an actual penalty you adjudge appropriate for Harris' crime of downloading images of child pornography.

You said;

“But I would very carefully put it in context and think about it the scale of severity, and not just outrightly condemn people for things at the light end of the spectrum.”

It is exactly your 'scale of severity' I am wishing to explore. I obviously think you recognise like the rest of us that there is indeed a scale, that physical contact involving touching of genitals is further along the scale than downloading images, that anything that involved penetration would be another a step further and full sexual intercourse a step further again.

It is when we overlay the offense scale on to a sentencing scale that community expectations are realised. I would put it to you that yours is not only patently out of synch with the vast majority of the community but will lead to nonsense conclusions.

So back to my question, let's focus it a little with a hypothetical. Assume Harris, instead of sexually assaulting the 8 year old, had taken a picture of her unclothed in a change room without her being aware of it. Given you have proscribed a $300 fine for actual physical and sexual contact what does your scale deem an appropriate penalty for Harris for this action?