egafd.com

Agreed, JJ. The point I singularly failed to make was that public perception of the problem is further obscured by the lawyers' arguments about the evils of such sites. If the hypocritical knee-jerk reaction of the tabloid press is to call for a ban, how do you think some professional liar is going to get his vicious client off?

I loathe with a vengeance the Max Hardcore-style of film, and there are things worse than his films out there. I wouldn't go near them. But, so long as those involved are a) adults and b) consenting, there should be no problems with them remaining.

Sex offenders often use the 'I only did this because I saw it being done in a video or magazine' defence because courts sometimes accept it as mitigation. However used in a different context the courts do not accept this excuse. If I drove my car at 100mph in a 30mph area, and I killed someone. I don't think I would get very far with the defence that I only drove at that speed because I saw Michael Schumacher driving at 100mph on tv. Why do courts treat watching pornography as valid mitigation?

This is the sensible, rational approach that a mature society should adopt- irrespective of any given government's views about restrictions of freedom of information or sensitivity to a sensationalist press with its own agenda.

I also find that if anyone wants to open a sex shop within 500 miles of a school the local 'wholesome family values' group go ape-shit. But no one cares when a church is next to a school or a scout house. From all the evidence I read, sex shop customers are far less likely to be any cause for concern.

I've never heard of ANY case where 'mitigation' (by which I presume you mean a lighter sentence) has been successfully (or indeed, unsuccessfully)claimed by the offender's use of pornography. The line that 'I did this because I saw it in a porn video' won't work, simply because it's a total abdication of personal responsibility- we are all answerable for our actions, unless deemed to be clinically insane- which is another defence entirely.
An offender's use of pornography might be cited by the prosecution for various reasons, none of which as far as I can see hold water in the slightest.

It's all of a piece with the public/media's apparent ignorance that the majority of paedophile crimes (and rapes, too) are committed by someone the victim knows or is related to.
So that's parents, rellies and friends who aren't to be trusted- perhaps we should all be locked into small metal boxes at birth. At least we'd be safe, then.........

You know who also watch porn?
Politicians!

Now that is what I call a bad lot to be categorised along...

There have been several high profile cases over the years where a defendant has used watching pornography as mitigation for committing serious sexual crimes. It does work sometimes and this can be ascertain by remarks by judges when passing sentence. One case where it was tried unsucessfully was the 'moors murders'. Brady claimed he had been influenced by the work of the Marquis de Sade.

I always thought money was the root of all evil! these sayings aren,t just made up for fun you know, someone put a lot of thought into them.......

Care to cite any, apart from Brady?- which if concerned with De sade was therefore about art, not porn. By that logic, I might use my fondness for Rabelais or Chaucer as a justification for almost anything..........