7% of Australian Catholic priests

Originally posted by twhitehead
Obviously, whatever predispositions towards paedophelia he has had, remain to some extent and are almost entirely responsible for his attraction towards children.
When you say he 'realises the danger', what danger would that be? Is he afraid of the police? Did he 'come to his senses' for that reason or because he actually recognises that abusing children ...[text shortened]... anyone prosecute him? He didn't do anything illegal did he? Or did he have a restraining order?

I reject the argument. Having an attraction does not cause us to act in a particular way. I find many paintings in art galleries attractive it does not cause me to stop and fantasise about stealing them. He realised that he could act upon his fantasies and left. He was prosecuted because his actions were construed as predation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly do not understand the nature of the crime in that case.

On the contrary its you who appears to understand little. I have just explained, three times now that paedophiles regardless of whether they act on their impulses if caught in the act of predation can be prosecuted even if the focus of their intent is fantasy or in the case quoted above computer generated imagery.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I reject the argument. Having an attraction does not cause us to act in a particular way.

Well, as is typical of you, you reject it despite the obvious fact that it is correct.

An attraction is by its very definition a partial cause. That is what the word means. To deny it is to be incoherent.

I find many paintings in art galleries attractive it does not cause me to stop and fantasise about stealing them.
And here we have proof that you know you are wrong as you have presented a false analogy. Is your 'attraction' to paintings a 'desire to steal them'? You quite clearly state that it isn't yet pretend that that is what the word is referring to.

He realised that he could act upon his fantasies and left. He was prosecuted because his actions were construed as predation.
Well, I am not familiar with the law in that instance. My feeling is that if you planned a murder but did not go through with it because you changed your mind then you are not guilty of attempted murder.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary its you who appears to understand little. I have just explained, three times now that paedophiles regardless of whether they act on their impulses if caught in the act of predation can be prosecuted even if the focus of their intent is fantasy or in the case quoted above computer generated imagery.

If a paedophile views children online for paedophilic purposes, then that is encouraging a child exploitation industry. It is completely different from going and watching children in a park. Even if the online child in question was a computer simulation, as long as the perpetrator was not aware of that fact, they are guilty of encouraging the industry.
You are confusing the two situations which are not equivalent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well, as is typical of you, you reject it despite the obvious fact that it is correct.

An attraction is by its very definition a partial cause. That is what the word means. To deny it is to be incoherent.

[b]I find many paintings in art galleries attractive it does not cause me to stop and fantasise about stealing them.
And here we have proof ...[text shortened]... ot go through with it because you changed your mind then you are not guilty of attempted murder.[/b]

An attraction is by its very definition a partial cause
No its not it doesn't cause us to do anything.

And here we have proof that you know you are wrong as you have presented a false analogy.
No I didn't my analogy was sound and you have presented no evidence that my attraction to paintings causes me to do anything. The idea in stealing them was to introduce an element of criminality, how this could have escaped your notice I have no idea.

Murder is not the same as predation. This is the point I have been trying to make, the law for paedophiles is specific. For example no one else can be prosecuted for the mere possession of obscene material, but paedophiles can because of the nature of the obscene material although in the UK there is now an extreme pornography law, but this differers from that which governs paedophiles because the material in extreme pornography must depict reality. Paedophiles can be convicted for having cartoon images.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#an02

Originally posted by twhitehead
If a paedophile views children online for paedophilic purposes, then that is encouraging a child exploitation industry. It is completely different from going and watching children in a park. Even if the online child in question was a computer simulation, as long as the perpetrator was not aware of that fact, they are guilty of encouraging the industry.
You are confusing the two situations which are not equivalent.

I agree yes. Many of them were caught because they offered of their own volition money for lewd acts. This itself is a criminal offence and I suspect that it matters not whether the child was real or a CGI. Its kinda like the police leaving the keys in a car and waiting for someone to try to steal it. One can argue that by doing so one is putting temptation before another but in the UK at least entrapment is not really viewed as a valid defence and there needs to be specific criteria met in order for it to qualify as such.

Rather interestingly the first person pleading entrapment was Eve.

The defense of entrapment is one of man's earliest recorded pleas.
The Bible tells us that Eve, when accused of eating the forbidden
fruit, protested: "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." Yet, strangely
enough, entrapment was not clearly recognized as a valid defense in the
federal courts until the 1932 case of Sorrells v. United States.' It is
interesting to note that the English courts have never squarely upheld
the defense of entrapment.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1635&context=flr