If you were judge for a day...

What would you do with Jon Venables?
The trial has already happened and he was given 2 years inprisonment. With his life as it is, it's doubtful that he will be able to have a productive life IMO. Do you think there's a better solution?

For anyone not familiar with him, he's a murder and danger to children.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/07/25/jon-venables-set-to-be-given-second-new-identity-at-cost-of-250k-86908-22438879/

Two years imprisonment for possession and distribution of child pornography seems rather harsh, especially if there is no suspicion he was involved in the manufacturing of it (a crime which has actual victims).

As for his original crime, the sentence was probably quite harsh considering he was only 10 at the time. I find it rather odd that people would find the crime more horrifying because the perpetrators were so young, when clearly it's much worse if an adult, who should be more aware that such behaviour is wrong, commits such a crime.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Two years imprisonment for possession and distribution of child pornography seems rather harsh, especially if there is no suspicion he was involved in the manufacturing of it (a crime which has actual victims).

As for his original crime, the sentence was probably quite harsh considering he was only 10 at the time. I find it rather odd that people wou ...[text shortened]... worse if an adult, who should be more aware that such behaviour is wrong, commits such a crime.

From the link above, "Venables admitted making 57 indecent images of children between February 24, 2009, and February 23, 2010, distributing three indecent photographs of children in February this year and distributing 42 indecent images of children on February 23, 2008.
It also emerged that he had posed as an abusive mum willing to sell her daughter to paedophile gangs on sites used by abusers."
So he was involved in manufacturing it.

I think it's worse becasue it indicates something wrong with him, mentally. Something sick- but I see your point he was still a child and as a chld not completely resposiable for himself and his actions. Should his parents have been improsioned instead or as well do you think?

Originally posted by yo its me
From the link above, "Venables admitted [b]making 57 indecent images of children between February 24, 2009, and February 23, 2010, distributing three indecent photographs of children in February this year and distributing 42 indecent images of children on February 23, 2008.
It also emerged that he had posed as an abusive mum willing to sell her daught f and his actions. Should his parents have been improsioned instead or as well do you think?[/b]

Oh, my bad. Well, if he was involved in abusing children that's a different story, of course.

In Holland they have this thing called "long-stay". It's basically a life sentence for mentally disturbed criminals, without actually handing out a life sentence.

As for parents being responsible for their children's crimes: I don't think we should tread that slippery slope.

Originally posted by yo its me
From the link above, "Venables admitted [b]making 57 indecent images of children between February 24, 2009, and February 23, 2010, distributing three indecent photographs of children in February this year and distributing 42 indecent images of children on February 23, 2008.
It also emerged that he had posed as an abusive mum willing to sell her daught ...[text shortened]... f and his actions. Should his parents have been improsioned instead or as well do you think?[/b]

I think it would be a horrible idea to imprison parents for crimes of their children unless they were involved in their commission. In fact, the concept makes me shudder. There is a reason vicarious liability is a tort law concept and not a criminal law concept.

Originally posted by yo its me
From the link above, "Venables admitted [b]making 57 indecent images of children between February 24, 2009, and February 23, 2010, distributing three indecent photographs of children in February this year and distributing 42 indecent images of children on February 23, 2008.
It also emerged that he had posed as an abusive mum willing to sell her daught ...[text shortened]... f and his actions. Should his parents have been improsioned instead or as well do you think?[/b]

He didn't make any photos he downloaded them.

He pleaded guilty to three offences under the 1978 Protection of Children Act. The first involved downloading 57 indecent pictures of children between February 2009 and February 2010.

The second involved distributing three indecent photographs of children in February 2010, while a third involved distributing 42 images in February 2008.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10735857

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Two years imprisonment for possession and distribution of child pornography seems rather harsh, especially if there is no suspicion he was involved in the manufacturing of it (a crime which has actual victims).

As for his original crime, the sentence was probably quite harsh considering he was only 10 at the time. I find it rather odd that people wou worse if an adult, who should be more aware that such behaviour is wrong, commits such a crime.

Possessing child porn is not a victimless crime. Less child porn would be produced if there were no market for its consumption. Yes, that's indirect; but very real.

Though I'd agree that 2 years for mere possession is a little harsh.

As for Venables, of course committing a crime as a 10 year old is not as bad as committing the same crime as an adult, but if an adult did what he did to that boy, that adult would deserve life imprisonment without parole or death. That he got 10 years was either justified or lenient.

Originally posted by sh76
Possessing child porn is not a victimless crime. Less child porn would be produced if there were no market for its consumption. Yes, that's indirect; but very real.

Though I'd agree that 2 years for mere possession is a little harsh.

As for Venables, of course committing a crime as a 10 year old is not as bad as committing the same crime as an adult, but ...[text shortened]... fe imprisonment without parole or death. That he got 10 years was either justified or lenient.

I'm not sure. If you pay for the child porn, surely. But if you're not paying, you're not really contributing to the production, unless you want to argue that people will spread child porn merely because they are child porn enthusiasts (like illegal music sharing).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not sure. If you pay for the child porn, surely. But if you're not paying, you're not really contributing to the production, unless you want to argue that people will spread child porn merely because they are child porn enthusiasts (like illegal music sharing).

Why else would one spread anything other than that they enjoy it and figure that others will as well?

Originally posted by sh76
Possessing child porn is not a victimless crime. Less child porn would be produced if there were no market for its consumption. Yes, that's indirect; but very real.

Though I'd agree that 2 years for mere possession is a little harsh.

As for Venables, of course committing a crime as a 10 year old is not as bad as committing the same crime as an adult, but ...[text shortened]... fe imprisonment without parole or death. That he got 10 years was either justified or lenient.

What kind of a "market" is there when these items are apparently down-loadable free on the internet? The cops should concentrate on arresting those who produce such items rather than those who click a mouse.

I don't think that possession of such items, as morally repugnant as it may be, should be a crime at all. People possess many DVDs showing murder and violence (standard Hollywood fare); according to this type of logic by doing so they are contributing to increased levels of murder and violence. There's no reasonable stopping point for such assertions and down this train of thought is censorship to the nth degree. The law gets away with treating "innocent" (in the sense they actually didn't harm any children) possessors of such materials harshly because of our moral outrage for an act (i.e. possession) that really causes no harm. Again down that road lies all types of penal sanctions against private behavior (such as homosexual sodomy, abortion, etc. etc.) that the State has no business interfering with.

As Justice Marshall said in Stanley v. Georgia: "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."

I'm perfectly aware that the Court has cowardly abandoned such reasoning in these types of cases, but that is an unprincipled surrender to political expediency rather than adherence to our basic Natural Rights values.

Originally posted by sh76
Why else would one spread anything other than that they enjoy it and figure that others will as well?

To make money?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What kind of a "market" is there when these items are apparently down-loadable free on the internet? The cops should concentrate on arresting those who produce such items rather than those who click a mouse.

I don't think that possession of such items, as morally repugnant as it may be, should be a crime at all. People possess many DVDs s ...[text shortened]... homosexual sodomy, abortion, etc. etc.) that the State has no business interfering with.

I believe possession of child porn should remain illegal, but only to convict those who are strongly suspected to be involved in the manufacturing of child porn, but hard evidence is lacking. The ban on possession thus functions as an extra deterrent to those who manufacture. Intrinsically, however, I don't find any objection to possessing child porn since there are no victims if you have not contributed to the manufacturing.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I believe possession of child porn should remain illegal, but only to convict those who are strongly suspected to be involved in the manufacturing of child porn, but hard evidence is lacking. The ban on possession thus functions as an extra deterrent to those who manufacture. Intrinsically, however, I don't find any objection to possessing child porn since there are no victims if you have not contributed to the manufacturing.

Having a law which convicts people of SOMETHING because you lack evidence to convict them of something which should be criminal is abhorrent to any principled idea of due process. If there isn't enough evidence to convict someone of manufacturing child porn, the State's suspicions shouldn't suffice to imprison them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What kind of a "market" is there when these items are apparently down-loadable free on the internet? The cops should concentrate on arresting those who produce such items rather than those who click a mouse.

I don't think that possession of such items, as morally repugnant as it may be, should be a crime at all. People possess many DVDs s nder to political expediency rather than adherence to our basic Natural Rights values.

People are not really killed or hurt to produce Hollywood violence. Children are really abused to produce child porn.

edit: If people really were killed to make movies, do you think they would be legal?

Originally posted by no1marauder
To make money?

I was referring to where there was no money involved. My comment was a follow up to KN's post which conceded that possession did indirectly hurt children in the case of paid for child porn.