NationStates Jolt Archive

hey everyone. I made a proposal and you guys should check it out. It's called Harsher Penalties for Child Pornography. Thanks!

Could you provide a link or say which pg your proposal is on. It intrigues the United Socialists States of Assatru and they want to know more.

To do a link, check the last entry on my sig, that will show you how.

It is considered good manners to do this, or post a full copy of the proposal.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=harsher


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: San Cannabis
Description: When enacted:
(1) The penalty for possession of child pornography will result in a 25 years to life sentence
(2) During the offenders time in prison he/she must undergo counseling and therapy
(3) Defendants may not plead insanity
(4) A second offense will result in an automatic life sentence
(5) Young offenders over 16 will be tried as adults
(6) If the offender reveals who suppled the pornography he shall only receive a 25 year sentence
Child pornography is disgusting and vile. We must stop slapping offenders on the wrists.

Why do so many people feel it is their place to tell us how to sentence our criminals?

Also, you don't actually define 'child pornography'. So, what's to stop the QMM brigade defining 'child' as 'child-shaped baked bean'?

first of all, i am pretty sure child pornography is covered elsewhere. secondly, i am going to call national sovereignty on this one. while it is good to encourage things like the outlawing of child pornography, it is a bit titchey actually setting out laws. another thing is the reference to age. in some nations, 16 is still concidered a child, whilst in others 16 means they have been an adult for 8 years. look back over passed resolutions, make sure CP is not covered, then re-write the proposal with the mind to encourage the outlawing of CP with less of the definate sentencing

Seriously, I do not think it is the UN's place to establish punishments, however, I am not opposed to a "punishment floor" to say what the minimum punishment should be. This proposal is too specific, though, so I cannot support it.

it's on page 20...srry bout that

Also, you don't actually define 'child pornography'. So, what's to stop the QMM brigade defining 'child' as 'child-shaped baked bean'?
So the QMM people now have a place in NS lingo. huh...

k, obviously needs improvment than. Thanks for the feedback.

k, obviously needs improvment than. Thanks for the feedback.

If you're going to resubmit, here would be my suggestions:

define 'child' and 'pornography' (I know it sounds simplistic, but it's needed) (the definition, not the pron);
leave the sentencing to national judiciaries;

If you're going to resubmit, here would be my suggestions:

define 'child' and 'pornography' (I know it sounds simplistic, but it's needed) (the definition, not the pron);
leave the sentencing to national judiciaries;


This is important; for example, what if a nation has a stricter sentencing policy for child abuse? This will look like a proposal in favour of the criminal. On the other hand, some nations might address the crime by administering some kind of chemical cure, which means the offender can be released after a shorter sentence with no risk of reoffending. To them the proposal would seem irrelevant.

Can we suggest wording the proposal so that nations are advised to increase their penalties, or at the least not to lower them?

To be honest I think we should be worrying less about locking those who posess child porn up for long periods and target those that make the porn instead. This proposal comes down like a hammer on those that buy the porn, but ignores the much greater crimes committed by those that make it.

Looking at a picture of a naked child, vile that that is, doesn't directly harm the child. Those that find the children and force them to commit the acts necessary to produce the porn do most definetly harm them.

Maybe the focus should be on the ones that produce and sell the material, as they are committing the greater crimes against children, than those that buy it and just look at the end result.

Originally Posted by Harsher Child Pornography Laws
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: San Cannabis
Description: When enacted:
(1) The penalty for possession of child pornography will result in a 25 years to life sentence


Erm - no. Sentencing is our duty.


(2) During the offenders time in prison he/she must undergo counseling and therapy


But if that is the case....


(3) Defendants may not plead insanity


Why must they undergo therapy?

Besides, we treat pedophillia (and associated "crimes") as sickness, rather than a crime, and while we do lock people away, only for their protection, for the protection of the rest of the society and so that we can treat them.


(4) A second offense will result in an automatic life sentence


No mandatory minimums.


(5) Young offenders over 16 will be tried as adults


The age of adulthood varies in nations - since you want to protect the children you should at least treat adults as adults in all nations, and kids as kids in all nations.


(6) If the offender reveals who suppled the pornography he shall only receive a 25 year sentence


I am going to assume you meant supplied and not suppled :}

No way. There is no way to ensure that one person tattling on another will lead anywhere ("Yes - It was Mrs Smith-Jones who supplied it to me" "But Mrs Smith-Jones denies it" "It was her - she burnt it all" etc etc) and the time it takes to conduct the trial of the accused will ensure that the person who might have a lesser sentence will be subjected to what could be called "cruel and unusual punishment" - something not acceptable.

Further more you don't cite any punishments or the like for supplying it.


Child pornography is disgusting and vile. We must stop slapping offenders on the wrists.


And nations are quite capable of doing that on their own.

If you're going to resubmit, here would be my suggestions:

define 'child' and 'pornography' (I know it sounds simplistic, but it's needed) (the definition, not the pron);
leave the sentencing to national judiciaries;


By the way - you are going to find defining child and pornography a total and utter nightmare to do.

To be honest I think we should be worrying less about locking those who posess child porn up for long periods and target those that make the porn instead. This proposal comes down like a hammer on those that buy the porn, but ignores the much greater crimes committed by those that make it.

Looking at a picture of a naked child, vile that that is, doesn't directly harm the child. Those that find the children and force them to commit the acts necessary to produce the porn do most definetly harm them.

Maybe the focus should be on the ones that produce and sell the material, as they are committing the greater crimes against children, than those that buy it and just look at the end result.
Bear in mind that without those people who view child porn, there would be no market for those who produce it. So if anything i think that we would need to come down hard on both the producers and the purchasers.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

By the way - you are going to find defining child and pornography a total and utter nightmare to do.

Absolutely. In the UK - dunno about the US - quite a few photo developing shops have started refusing to develop pictures of people's children bathing, etc., even when it's clear they're family photos, not porn. This isn't a proposal I'd realistically support, but my suggestion remains that for anyone to do so, the definition will need to be more clear cut. Child, I assume, will have to go in line with "Outlaw Pedophilia". Pornography? Not so sure.

Absolutely. In the UK - dunno about the US - quite a few photo developing shops have started refusing to develop pictures of people's children bathing, etc., even when it's clear they're family photos, not porn. This isn't a proposal I'd realistically support, but my suggestion remains that for anyone to do so, the definition will need to be more clear cut. Child, I assume, will have to go in line with "Outlaw Pedophilia". Pornography? Not so sure.

But Outlaw Pedophillia only refers to "pre-pubescent" minors. So once a kid hits puberty, they would be fair game to people who want to make porn, even if the kid is only thirteen.

(Which, I accept, is a HUGE flaw in OP, but the dangers of repealing that outweigh the dangers of leaving it where it is)