Sentencing Ideas?

Criminal justice
1

Possession of old CP: Fine / Sentence under a year. It might be worth decriminalizing it as it’s going to be impossible to get rid of it, but that is impossible to pitch here.

Possession of new CP: 1 - 3 years.

Distribution of old CP: 1 - 5 years.

Distribution of new CP: 10 years.

Production of CP: 10 years.

First Time Molester: 15 years.

Molester: 25 years.

Rapist: 40 years.

Coercive Rapist / Very Young Target: 60 years.

Distribution is defined as providing access to a file, such that another natural person can view and download it.

Sentences for molesters and rapists may seem harsh, but they’re notoriously hard to prosecute, and ageing someone by decades can reduce the probability they will re-offend without revolting civil liberties violations, or trapping someone into a cycle of getting re-arrested (technical parole violations). This inflates crime statistics.

Locking someone up for decades for posting a file is clearly not proportionate, therefore I haven’t mentioned that. Unproportionate punishments are not just.

I hate how spying on people for the purposes for “prevention” (which inevitably spreads out to other areas) has become so normalized. Civil liberties are human rights.

If someone was under 18 when they committed the crime, their sentence should be halved.

If someone was under 21 when they committed the crime, early release should be considered, but without authoritarian concepts like parole and probation. Someone is either safe to release or not, and when they’re not in prison, they have due process under the law.

If someone is over 60, early release could be considered.

If someone is going to be fined, give the money to the victims.

According to a scientific paper, 4% of the people in Sweden supposedly look at CP, so it isn’t as if you can magic your way out of that problem by arresting all of them, giving twenty people who hate themselves possibly ineffective therapy, or making another random twenty people suffer as lab rats. I’ve given up on making it disappear.

4 Likes
2

I have complicated opinions on “decriminalization”, but bottom line it must remain illegal, and harsh sentences should still be an option in the decriminalized scenario. If you want to “decriminalize” possession I hope you don’t mean literally legalize it.

How SAP scale works:
|1|Nudity or erotic posing with no sexual activity
|2|Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child
|3|Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children
|4|Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults
|5|Sadism or bestiality

A decriminalized but still highly illegal scheme will involve high fines to be a deterrent. I’d probably suggest: Fine will be Part I + Part II = TOTAL LIABILITY PUNISHMENT

Part I of the Mandatory Minimum Fine
Mandatory Minimum REGARDLESS how many images he possesses shall be:
$505 for the scale of 1
$1010 for the scale of 2
$1520 for the scale of 3
$2040 for the scale of 4
$3080 for the scale of 5

Part II of the Mandatory Minimum Fine
In addition to the mandatory minimum, the pervert shall be fined ADDITIONALLY on a PER IMAGE/VIDEO basis.
Mandatory Minimum as far as fines go regarding the following based on a PER IMAGE/VIDEO basis:

The SAP Scale 5: Minimum $1000 Maximum fine of $5000
The SAP Scale 4: Minimum $250 Maximum Fine of $975
The SAP Scale 3: Minimum $100 Maximum Fine of $300
The SAP Scale 2: Minimum $45 Maximum Fine of $125
The SAP Scale 1: Minimum $17 Maximum Fine of $50

SHARING OR PURCHASING SHALL NOT ONLY BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON, BUT THE MANDATORY MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM FINE SHALL BE INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF 5 FOR BOTH PART I AND PART II MANDATORY SENTENCES.

Making sense of this:
A criminal who possesses a single image of sadistic CP shall be fined under the title of $3080 + $1000 = $4080 as the true mandatory minimum. Or as a maximum of $8080.

If he possesses 1000 of such images, SAP Scale 5, even if they are duplicates, the mandatory minimum shall be:
$3080 + (1000 * $1000) = $1,003,080
As for the maximum fine: $3080 + (1000 * $5000) = $5,003,080

Obviously very few of these criminals will be able to pay it off. They will be indebt for life. But that is only if they are such fucktards as to keep offending to the point where they are liable for millions of dollars in damages. I have ZERO sympathy for them.

If first time offender, participate in intensive rehabilitation program until deemed no longer a recidivist risk. Their debt will than be reduced by 75%. So an offender who was fined $400,000 will now only have to pay $100,000. But only for first time offenses.

For those who distribute or purchase access, but are first time offenders, maximum prison sentence shall be 5 years, liability can only be reduced by 55% through rehabilitation. Repeat offenders will be maximum of 10 years. No reduction in liability possible.

3 Likes
4

I can recognize your writing style, EthicalAI. Nice try pretending to be a newbie.
You also came online briefly between two of the troll accounts. As always, you are so quick to temper when you perceive someone is “defending” rapists.

4 Likes
6

Why are you even here? Get a life.

5 Likes
7

On twitter someone has been posting about how this was a pedophile support site dude… People are looking at this site with scorn and worry. You NEED people to break your echo chambers.

1 Like
8

This isn’t much of an echo chamber tbh. Someone was happily advocating to genocide the mysopeds for several days, who I have a neutral opinion on, although I’m trying to figure out what to do about. Occasionally, someone talks about implementing the final solution.

Someone who was here for about three days got mad about it. Other people didn’t comment on it, other than “Oh, again?”

Psychologists write more provocative things than me in The Guardian. For instance, they want the treatment Vanessa got to be more widespread, and they’re upset the Conservatives want to stop halving sentences for the worst offenders. If a mainstream media outlet is saying things like that, it is hardly surprising people may have different thoughts about punitive punishments.

They own a support community for providing psychological support, so you could consider it a “support site”, if you construe it in that fashion. There is a lot of friction between them and that “support site”. QAnon circles have been speaking about Prostasia for years, as has a man by the name of Jon Uhler. Jon Uhler believes from the bottom of his heart that all furries are child predators. He ended up getting cancelled by furries, and has since lost his job, and become inactive.

The main thing which is good about AI, is that even if they’re too enthusiastic about making someone suffer, they recognize prevention isn’t this magical silver bullet which can solve all problems. Someone either has to be either pure prevention, pure criminalization, or pure rehabilitation. It’s a form of tunnel vision.

Ageing contact offenders up isn’t a popular idea in the progressive world, but when the crime is serious enough, it might be warranted. There isn’t much evidence rehabilitation programs are that effective, and a lot of the information about whether they could be comes from prevention organizations who want more funding.

I have to mention the idea, even if it’s only once or twice, as otherwise it is easy to get lost in a form of purism and groupthink. I’d be a very wary about simply applying a blanket abolish prisons and implement rehabilitation for all offenses. Proportionality is also important.

Oh. I forgot. Post limit. I’m guessing you’re going to be back with yet another account.

3 Likes
9

u cannot return the innocence stolen from a child u can and should never be free
scar a child for life and u should be scared in return

1 Like
10

Stupid peasants have always looked upon “witches” with “scorn and worry”. Doesn’t mean that the opinions of stupid peasants are valid in the least.

3 Likes
11

Seems reasonable. Though I would rather execute a child molester/rapist.

12

Really large fines could work

14

According to the skopos labs link it has only a 3% chance of passing. That may change, but right now science heavily disagrees with the banning of dolls.

2 Likes
15

Harsh sentence for raper I like this

16

Interesting idea… I think a lot of EU countries do high fines as oppose to prison or probation for a lot of crimes. Can still be a solid deterrence to criminal offending as long as it’s proportionate to their income/wealth. In germany something like over 90% of their prosecutions result in a high fine. 4-5% result in unsuspended prison sentence. the rest result in supervision. Ideally, fines could be used as a form of restoration, if some portion of it is given to the victimized party. Rest of the fine could be used to fund additional prosecution towards offenders. Prisons make most sense to particularly dangerous individuals such as rapists or career criminals.

2 Likes
17

I have a much more radical idea of ​​what the punishment system should be like. (And not just for crimes about rape) Like there’s some crimes that I don’t see the slightest sense in arresting the person. Seeing CP (Real) for me would be one of those.
Well, in fact Real CP for me is a controversial topic, I’m not 100% sure that it should be a crime. I think it would depend a lot on the specific situation. BUT, assuming it is a crime. Then, in my opinion, this is the type of crime that a financial penalty (fine) would be much more effective. Even because the money could be used in campaigns against that crime. Except that to really cause “fear” in people I think that fines should be calculated from the total assets (Sum of the value of all properties, shares, money in account, etc.) that the person has, and should be staggered in case of recurrence.
So it would be something like ->
watching CP = 10% of the person’s total assets.
So, for a billionarie (assets = 1 billion) the first time fine would be 100 million … But that same fine could be $1,000 depending of the wealth of the person.
And for recidivis the fine would scalonate, so it could be: 25%, 50%, 75% And that will escalate until it is 100% of the assets, and the person is sent to a shelter.
Also it should logically have a minimum value. That if the person is unable to pay, then is jail.
There would be no way for other people to pay in the name of the ofender, because the “asset” value refers to the amount declared in the income tax.
(Note that income tax fraud = imprisonment)
To prevent the person from being able to pay through “donations” received that year, it could be placed that in any penalty above, in addition to fine will be add 100% of all donations and inheritances received by that person, so donations and/or monetary help from other people would never help.

Now about rape, I think it should be compulsory hospitalization with no release date in a specific rehabilitation center for that. If the person is considered not dangerous, then he must be released, but if he molests again, then it is life imprisonment. And of course, if the person kills, death penalty.
Anyway that would be my opinion.

1 Like
18

That is a recipe for disaster, people would be anonymously spamming CSEM to other people online, calling the police on them for various reasons, like revenge, or simply to troll them. There is also an issue of proving that a person saw such materials. How can you know that? How can you verify it? And how can you prove, that it was intentional? Besides, seeing such materials isn’t a problem. It’s not wrong because it’s a sin, it’s wrong because real people are hurt in its production, and once produced, the distribution of such materials affects such victims even long after their experiences. The main problem is production and distribution, fighting those two naturally affect the possession.

I assume you are talking about possession, but not distribution and production. If that is the case, the financial penalty with the addition of permanently taking away such materials from such person, instead of jail time, seems reasonable, mainly because it could reduce the incentive for malicious individuals or groups to frame someone by dropping some of such materials into their home or on their drives, to use the law enforcement against them. Governments sometimes like to use that tactic on inconvenient individuals, in order to discredit them in the public eye, and as an excuse to enter someones home and take away their belongings legally. Kind of like in the case of drug possession laws, when some corrupt cops plant some drugs while searching someone’s car or enter peoples houses under the suspicion, of possession of drugs.

It’s way harder to frame a person for production and distribution, and in those cases, the law enforcement needs the legal ability to disrupt such activities permanently. A financial penalty instead of jail is definitely a wrong idea.

Life in prison - yes. Death penalty - no, for as long as our legal system isn’t perfect and makes mistakes.

1 Like
19

I said “watching CP” in a generic way, it was just a simplification. Of course, the simple fact of bumping into it by mistake would not be a crime, and of course that the penalty would be proportional to the crime. Like, one thing is to have 1 image of CP hidden in your computer. Now to have 1 million of them and also sharing it, it would be much more serious.
Other than that, of course, denouncing is different from condemnation. All Crime reports need to be proven, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
And about punishment only the distributing and not for consuming? Well, I don’t necessarily disagree with you dude, as I said, I’m not 100% sure that this should be a crime in the first place. I am just analyzing the situation in a position where it is supposed to be a crime.
And about the death penalty, I also not 100% sure about it, at first I’m not against changing the death penalty to life imprisonment. Like, I think the death penalty CAN be valid as a LAST RESOURCE. Like, where it is 100% confirmed that the person killed, 100% confirmed that he/she intended to kill and there is a huge possibility that he/she will do it again if the chance appear. Anyway, in my opinion, it should be used just in very specific cases and have to be way rarer than it is today.

1 Like
20

Like, one thing is to have 1 image of CP hidden in your computer. Now to have 1 million of them and also sharing it, it would be much more serious.

Another aspect of seriousness is how did you get it. For example, in many jurisdiction, image cache possession counts as possession. Group A intentionally going to a child abuse site or chat room principally for sharing child abuse material for the purpose to watch child abuse. They watched 3 abuse videos or download them. Group A is committing an offense which is arguably way more serious than Group B on Facebook who stumbles across 3 abusive videos, but decides not to scroll away promptly enough, didn’t report, or maybe they did both, but simply didn’t empty image cache promptly enough. Even if both may have violated the letter of the law. I don’t hear much about prosecution for group B in the United States Federal level, probably because the focus is on serious cases. I do hear about prosecution for Group A, though the focus is still mostly on those producing and distributing. For state level, I’m not terribly familiar.

I have read about one prosecution for group B in Ireland. There was one case in Ireland in which a woman got a 4 month suspended sentence when some asshole sent her a baby rape video and was unable to navigate the legal and technical minefield. She did delete the message which included the contraband. But there were some features on the phone the saved the contraband elsewhere that an unexperienced user would not know much about. Result: 4 month suspended sentence.

Personally, I’d rather see prosecutors avoid wasting valuable scarce resources on Group B. Most of the focus ought to remain on distributors and producers. Some resources could be used for going after group A with proportionate fines and mandated therapy as we’ve seen in Europe, but harsh prosecution focus really should remain on distributors and producers. But we should still be aware of the reality: we are not going to arrest your way out of this problem. Prosecution can only be part of the puzzle. INHOPE I believed admitted this. We are going to have to look towards prevention programs that prevent people from accessing, and prevent those who already access from moving onto more serious offenses, and (controversially) victimless outlet to see what role they play in reducing and preventing harm.

4 Likes
21

Okay, I thought you meant it literally, as just “seeing it” next to possession, distribution and production. Good to have that miscommunication out of the way.

Sadly, while the law should follow this rule, in many instances it doesn’t. There are multiple cases of people being punished simply because they didn’t manage to provide convincing proofs of them not doing what they are accused of. Situations like there is a witness, that might be also an accuser, making false allegations, create such issues.

And I’m not sure if it should be decriminalized, with an only financial penalty left instead. I was mainly making this point to provide you with a different perspective. Every law can and will be abused against innocent people. Laws don’t follow the intent as to why they were created, most of the time, they are taken literally and applied whenever they can, and in some instances, they are used as a weapon to destroy someone’s life. I prefer to make decisions that first protect the innocent, and then have anything to do with the guilty. Mistakes don’t just happen. They are unavoidable in every situation, even small ones.

The problem is, you can’t even be 100% sure of anything. Even if a person committed a crime right in front of your eyes, there is a possibility, that they were blackmailed to do it and take the blame, for example, because they family was taken, hostage. Death penalty in such case would kill the only witness, and the real perpetrator of the crime would go free, committing more crimes, while everyone would lose their guard, thinking the danger was eliminated. Life in prison, instead of the death penalty, is simply the most effective solution in an effort to reduce the crime rates. Such prisoner, if the real perpetrator were to be found in the future, can then testify and be left free, having their reputation cleared, and have a recompensation from the justice system. And just a mere fact, that the government would hold such witness in the prison, instead of permanently killing them, creates a risk for such criminals that would like to frame someone else for the crime. If they don’t release the family they took hostage, the person in jail might testify against him. If they do release them, the family are now the witnesses and can testify against him as well. Because of such circumstance, it’s pointless to even attempt such a method in the first place.

There is always a possibility that you will kill an innocent person with the death penalty. Happened multiple times already. And the idea that it’s required to give the family of the victim closure is usually repeated by people who never were in a situation that would require such closure. How do you think such family members would react, once they were to hear, that they had a long legal battle against innocent person, and managed to get them murdered with the death penalty?

2 Likes
22

I see, in that case I would say then that fighting for the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” should be the first thing we should demand from the authorities. After all, this is a basic thing that any civilized justice system should deliver.
And I understand your point of view on the death penalty, this is really a complicated topic.

2 Likes
24

Strange. I would say that we shouldn’t ever be allowing anyone to rape anyone, but I guess we don’t all hold that view.

2 Likes