http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/200706...
The police in the UK have asked men who look at indecent images, but have not actually harmed a child to get help. Do you think that these men should be charged anyway? Or do you think that if they have not hurt anyone and get help, they should be allowed freedom and not sent to jail? Is looking at porn on the net as bad as harming the child who has been abused to make the image?
Please read the question carefully before answering.
2007-05-31 20:21:28 · 6 answers · asked by The Patriot 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If they pay for the pedo porn then I say they're contributing to the abuse, so yes, they should go to jail. If they just came across it for free, then no, though it pains me to say it.
Now, if I were law enforcement I'd definitely want to compile a list of these perverts since many of them may graduate to actually committing pedophilia. If a child is molested or raped, the police would have some doors to knock on.
2007-05-31 20:29:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
a sturdy physician has following factors.. *His social or communication skills with the sufferers which constitutes the two verbal and non-verbal (physique language) communication...As our occupation is an area provider. *He could be a functionality style (a doctor who tells his/her sufferers to stop smoking should not be seen smoking exterior the wellbeing facility 5 minutes after the affected person leaves.. the place's the intergrity in this acceptable?) *He could be waiting to talk in a fashion the affected person is conscious (unlikely off on the homes of amino acids... and so on. and so on) as this might come out as arrogance *He, ideally could persist with up on his sufferers ... provide them telephone calls to work out how they are doing *The physician could be prepared to coach!!... this is going alongside very nicely with preventive wellbeing care. The physician could provide the sufferers the fishing rods, extremely than the fish. If a doctor is conscious the thank you to coach his/her affected person what to do and what to no longer do, the physician would be waiting to help the affected person substitute his way of existence for the extra suitable so as that the affected person does not could shop coming decrease back. *>And final yet no longer the least he could be sensible, as much as date, And maximum Of all ethical. Dr Suraj A ok
2016-12-30 11:30:16 · answer #2 · answered by douse 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Looking at child porn on the net encourages the industry (for lack of a better word), so yes, they are equally guilty. I think pedophiles should be killed. It has been proven time and time again that they can not be rehabilitated. They are beyond redemption.
NItty, you're a dimwit. The asker is from the UK. He or she is using British spelling.
2007-05-31 20:29:46 · answer #3 · answered by Alice K 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
By looking at child porn a person creates a demand and this is the problem.some people will do anything for money. How can a man look at a child in a sexual way? that is so twisted.
2007-05-31 20:27:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
You please read your OWN question before sending- use the spellcheck, stupid.
It doesn't matter if it is AS bad as harming the child- the fact that they are providing a market for the child pornography should have some sort of penalty. No demand, no supply, no pictures taken in the first place.
2007-05-31 20:26:27 · answer #5 · answered by nitty b 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"Is looking at porn on the net as bad as harming the child who has been abused to make the image?"
Yes it is.
2007-05-31 20:26:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋