Poll: Is this fair? a question of creepy porn

[ace_of_something]

Zee source;
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/45535132.html

A Glenwood, Iowa man has pleaded guilty to possessing drawings of children being sexually abused.
Christopher Handley entered his plea Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Des Moines.
Officials with the U.S. attorney's office say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement intercepted a package coming into the U.S. from Japan that was addressed to Handley. Inside the package were books containing Japanese manga drawings of minor females being sexually abused. Additional obscene drawings of sexual abuse were seized from the 39-year-old Handley's house.
Federal law prohibits the possession of any visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct, including drawings, cartoons, sculptures or painting.
Handley faces up to 15 years in prison. Sentencing hasn't been scheduled.

Disgusting? Yes Should he be Jailed? Well, the law says you should be but this area seems awfully fuzzy to me.
Now, obviously this is a mature topic please keep the jokes at least somewhat relevant and we need no disturbing images on the escapist.

And a poll cuz everyone loves polls.

 

[fenrizz]

well.. I'm a bit torn on this.
On one hand child pornography and child abuse is so wrong I can't even find the words to describe how wrong it is.
On the other hand, it's not real pictures.

Obviously he has gone to great lengths to not harm any children, despite his apparent obsession.
I just don't know, so I say let him fry!

 

[Sparrow]

Yup. It's fair.

Owning pictures of little kiddies doing that sick shit is only a step away from doing it yourself.

 

[Biek]

It doesnt change the fact he's a massive pervert. Maybe making it public is punishment enough? I wouldnt care if he dissapeared behind bars though.

 

[Vrex360]

Part of me feels tempted to go with this guys theory:

you know his theory... "MEN GO TO PRISON, PIGS GET SLAUGHTERED" or something like that. But seriously I would get all the people responsible for this and lock 'em up.
That said it's just animation so maybe he hates his own sexual perversions in which case I think treatment is the best thing for him. I feel sorry for him.

(oh by the way Rorschach is soooo relevant to this topic as he mentions how the 'human cocroaches horde up thier child porn)

 

[NotAPie]

I honestly don't really know.
One half is...
Its just a drawing...
The other half...
Hes a pervert.

 

[kaziard]

yea its sick but i dont think its jailworthy, hes actually made a very large effort to obtain just cartoons, im not very informed about this but if you feel that way i doubt it is very difficult to get pictures of ACTUAL child porn over the interweb. So in essence, yes the guys a creepy wierdo but he is not actually harming anyone.

 

[Same River New Water]

Nobody was harmed, so it's totally unfair for this guy to be punished. "It's gross" shouldn't be a legal justification; an act should have to cause or be likely to cause some definable harm before it can be made illegal. An adult drawing a picture for another adult should never be a punishable offence, no matter what the picture depicts.

 

[Unorthodoxx]

You have to take in the factor that things in Japan are different. They don't see this as taboo like they do in America. Then again its Japan.....Do you really need me to go on?

 

[Joos]

He, how about a rape-game where you get bonus points for gang rapes? Yup, its a high seller, only in Japan.

 

[Flowerpot]

Of course he should be jailed, it is illegal, it's been illegal for a while and it isn't actually all that uncommon.

Look at the size of the article, this is not news.

 

[Cowabungaa]

He is a perv ofcourse, there is no way to justifice child abuse. However, in this case, no child was abused. Yes it's disgusting, but let's be honest: no one is harmed. No need to jail him, but they do need to keep an eye on him.

 

[prefectimo]

I don't think 15 years is fair or any kind of jail time without a psychiatric exam. If he is deemed to be mentally disturbed then he should be given some kind of treatment. If he chooses to obtain these pictures to hold off his want to see or do such actions then once again I think the only course of action is treatment. Now If these were obtained because he thought they were the only legal way he could view children being raped then he should be sentenced to jail time with treatment throughout his stay.

Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

 

[Zorg Machine]

If it's not real I don't see why anyone would care.

 

[Carnagath]

Really there is such a law? About DRAWINGS? That's pretty disturbing. I disagree with this. The fact that you are fucked up doesn't mean that you should go to prison for 15 years. He never even hurt anyone. Are they serious? He is a troubled person, he should be offered medical assistance and perhaps be under some sort of supervision that would at least allow him to continue breathing through his hell of an existence the best way that he can. This law is incredibly brutal and arrogant. Really, people should see a film like the Woodsman before trying to lynch disturbed people, in my opinion, it gives you a pretty clear idea of what the other side of the situation might look like and gives you something more to perhaps think about before you yell "OMG HE'S NOT NORMAL, CUT HIM OPEN".

 

[alwaysrockon]

yes he should be jailed. jus becasue their not real pictures dosn't change anything. its like when someone pleads not guilty to "almost" shooting someone because they missed. pediophilism is just fucking WRONG.
sure their just drawings but its a first step for people. like when people begin to torture animals, then you know the next step is other fucking people. if you see the signs of a pedophile you do not let him go free becasue "they were only drawings"

 

[Cowabungaa]

yes he should be jailed. jus becasue their not real pictures dosn't change anything. its like when someone pleads not guilty to "almost" shooting someone because they missed. pediophilism is just fucking WRONG.
sure their just drawings but its a first step for people. like when people begin to torture animals, then you know the next step is other fucking people. if you see the signs of a pedophile you do not let him go free becasue "they were only drawings"

Well, the problem is, in this case there is no victim. Yes it's disgusting that this would be his way to watch children get raped, but fact is: no kid is actually béing raped. You can't jail someone for his thoughts, no matter how horrible they are. Only if they start to act to it, if there is a victim, then he deserves punishment.

 

[Koeryn]

One massive fine, and a lot of therapy. Possibly a month or two in jail.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Nobody was harmed, so it's totally unfair for this guy to be punished. "It's gross" shouldn't be a legal justification; an act should have to cause or be likely to cause some definable harm before it can be made illegal. An adult drawing a picture for another adult should never be a punishable offence, no matter what the picture depicts.

This. There's way worse stuff floating around on the internet, does everybody who's ever looked at something disgusting (or written, or drawn, or bought) also deserve to be locked up? Besides, it was Japanese manga. I think it's important to remember that it's not real. It wasn't a real person, it was a drawing. Should I go to jail if I draw a picture on a napkin of Stalin engaging in "relations" with -insert respected historical person here-? Can you really punish somebody with real consequences just for owning non-real controversial material?

Ownership of artwork depicting illegal activities does NOT imply that one would commit said illegal activities in the future. That's up to the individual. The law is NOT supposed to catch criminals BEFORE they commit a crime, but after. A law against possession of drawings of illegal stuff is an unjust law. What if somebody said it was illegal to draw a man smoking pot? Or draw a rape scene? Or something equally illegal/distasteful? We can't have shades of gray with the law-it has to be consistent. No double standards for you, Mr. Supreme Court! No sir!