RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal?

RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

[Poll]

At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal?

When you merely think about the fantasy?

16% (11)

When you do any act in favor of the fantasy?

33% (23)

When you actually perform the fantasy?

50% (34)

Total Votes : 68

(last vote on : 4/6/2013 3:17:30 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

graceadieu -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 7:42:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darkfeather Ok, I am done dealing with your silly logic. One cop sitting watching Gilberto would lead to an escalation in crime because he could not be out there dealing with others?? You do know that there are other cops on any given police force, and that I think even my local police, who have a whopping 10 officers, could afford to spare one on a surveillance schedule if it meant catching a criminal. But seeing as I can't even fathom the reasoning you seem to be basing your statements from, I will leave you at your word... God forbid "evil" runs rampant while we worry about actual crime. Lets get those "potential criminals" off the streets. At least until the definition of potential starts to include what, jay walkers, spitting on the street, whistling. Hell, a good prosecutor could convict a spitter of conspiracy. But hey, in your would it would never happen right? Assigning a cop to tail him 24/7 for weeks or months would be a serious drain on police resources. You're talking about paying at least 3 full-time employees indefinitely, just to find out if this one guy is actually going to follow through on his plans. And since he's a cop, how could they even keep that a secret?

KrazyJester -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 7:48:23 PM)
Oh I did offer up my opinion so did the majority here, all being concurrent with the law. Your being flipent trying to argue against what everyone is trying to tell you. First is was a question of why he was sentenced to life in prison, which wasn't the case then its was of his guilt which you have changed your stance on several times from he did actually commit a crime to he didnt do anything, which again is wrong he did commit a crime, and then you switched to how conspiracy is easy to convict of, which let me tell you something. It's not. A little back story of myself. My ex-wife conspired to have me killed with one of the many people she had an affair on me with while I was deployed overseas. This didn't come to light until she was under investigation for said adultery and the man she was planning it with became violent with his spouse and reported to the authorities outside of the military. Did the investigation go anywhere? Nope. Was she able to attempt to get a government job after the fact. Yep. Do I think that something would have happened to me if that man didn't end up in jail? No telling but in my perspective, was she conspiring. Hell yes. My opinion of him has been stated several times.

FrostedFlake -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 8:34:00 PM)
Did I neglect to state my opinion? My bad. I'd be a little nervous about Valle being given a plastic spoon. And he was a cop.

Darkfeather -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 8:36:41 PM)
Oh KrazyJester, silly boy. When you quote me, constantly, Constantly, and only argue against the points I bring up instead of offering up your own... That Is not being flippant (sp), that is pointing out the obvious. As for your opinion of him, yes you have, I believe you stated you would have given him the death penalty for accessing the police database, but don't quote me on that. But You know, I have asked several questions since that, and of course you answered none of them, in stead choosing to argue with me. While this is fine, I will no longer gratify posts that simply quote me seeking to pick apart my opinion. That is an argument, and since I am the only person with the contrary opinion there is not going to be one. I will be more than happy to discuss differing viewpoints, as I can more than support mine

Darkfeather -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 8:38:07 PM)
And wow, your an easy one to satisfy, just don't give the man a plastic spoon...

KrazyJester -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 9:23:06 PM)
So what a minute... me giving you my logical opinion on how manpower in the police force works and you disregarding it as "silly logic" because you where focusing on one individual as opposed to society as a whole, isnt being flippant? Because I would say it is.

tazzygirl -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 10:09:42 PM)
quote: Me, I tend to require a bit more than text ramblings or delusional fantasy fueled conversations before I start loading up the firing squad Its a good thing we dont have to rely upon you to protect any of us.

KrazyJester -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 10:19:51 PM)
Also everything I have posted, even if it was a rebuttal to your post and pointing of facts would be part of my opinion, correct? My opinion is pretty much you are wrong on a lot of points. Bringing back what you say and discussing the points you make is in fact a discussion, debate, what have you. Although you regard me as a "silly boy" if you haven't noticed I have a fair amount of knowledge when it comes to LE matters and legal matters, and most of my opinions are along the same lines of the law, not because I am brainwashed. But because I happen to agree with a majority of it.

LafayetteLady -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 10:28:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darkfeather Isn't it wonderful how those who offer no opinions of there own on the matter are the most vocal about mine? Surprisingly enough, it is also those opinions I choose to ignore, as they seem only to instigate an argument instead of generating a discussion on the subject. The only thing that people focus on in this case is connectivity. He did A, He did B, B must lead to C, so he therefore is guilty of C. There is no evidence he actually did C, but we can infer from A and B that he will do C sometime in the future. Me, I tend to require a bit more than text ramblings or delusional fantasy fueled conversations before I start loading up the firing squad Everyone is giving their opinion. Their opinion is that the man is guilty as charged. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand. This isn't a matter of trying to argue with you, but I would say that you are really altering what was a positive opinion about yourself with several members here. What people are "focusing" on in this case is their understanding of the law. You seem to lack that, or feel that since you disagree with it, it shouldn't apply. So let's just see if you can actually understand this when explained in a way that, since you gave the example first, should understand: He did "A" and he did "B." He was not convicted of "C," he was convicted of "A" and "B" and the belief that he was serious enough about "A" and "B" that it was necessary to do something before he actually did commit "C." The police and the prosecutors didn't simply run out and arrest him when his wife came to them. They conducted an investigation lasting approximately SIX MONTHS. They gathered evidence of him doing "A" and "B." They also gathered evidence that indicated, given time, he would take the information he gained from doing "A" and "B" to, indeed, commit "C." He was not convicted out of fear, or because of his "kink." Personally, I don't consider cannibalism a "kink." Yep, I am one of those person who isn't afraid to draw a line in the sand and say, no, this is not simply healthy kinky fantasies, but something sinister that someone should seek psychological help with, and that isn't an opinion I hold on just cannibalism. Somethings, even when a fantasy are not "healthy" thoughts. He also wasn't charged with conspiracy because it is so "easy" to get a conviction on. It really isn't. It would probably be easier to get someone convicted of murder. Why? Because proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is likely going to act on something isn't easy. The prosecutor has to convince people that all the evidence indicates he is likely to follow through if given both time and opportunity, both of which the accused is looking for. So in my "opinion," the State met their burden of proof. This isn't based on what I have read in news reports of the case. Admittedly, I haven't seen all the evidence actually presented in the case either. However, I do have a great deal of legal experience, and I know that contrary to many people's beliefs, including yours, juries don't typically convict out of fear or ignorance. Hell, even the jury on the Casey Anthony trial admitted that the prosecution screwed up so badly, that as much as they believed the woman guilty, the jury instructions left them no choice but to acquit her. So sorry, while you don't agree with the jury's verdict, it was appropriate based on the evidence presented, and had nothing to do with the "fear" of the jurors, or their ignorance about "kink." Now, do I believe the guy should spend his life behind prison bars? No. I believe he should be committed to a psychiatric facility, and when the doctors their feel that this man has gathered some understanding about why his "thoughts" and actions were those of someone who was suffering from mental illness, he should be remanded to the court with all the supporting information from those doctors, and then it should be determined how long his ass should sit in jail. If that means he is in a locked down mental institution for 40 years before receiving a prison sentence, oh well.

Darkfeather -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/17/2013 10:54:31 PM)
He was convicted of C. That is the definition of conspiracy. I even gave a clear example of that with the knife in the U.K. If you doubt it, here is a definition of conspiracy to commit: "In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence." What that means is all they need to prove is you intended to commit at some time in the near future (talked about, texted, wrote stories, etc), had done anything to "take steps", hell buying a bus ticket anywhere near a perceived target would fit that requirement. This is significantly easier than murder. But if you can provide any facts to your statement that murder is in fact easier than the above please do As for opinion, the second half of your statement is definitely opinion. You say clearly that you feel conspiracy is harder than murder. Notice, your entire statement is not just an argument against my opinion, hence why I responded

TAFKAA -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 1:58:52 AM)
Your poll is disingenuous. You missed out an option "When you articulate the fantasy." Your thoughts are free, but once you give voice to them, once you articulate the desire, your society is obliged to act. You've gone beyond personal boundaries into the realm of the social and at that point, it's your social interactions which you're being held accountable for. It's important this guy gets life. This biases the scales for similar miscreants in the future, so that attempting to conspire in this fashion carries with it a corresponding risk which most will find unacceptable. This is simple game theory and the problem with many societies is their lack of clearly understandable penalties which correctly impact an individual's assessment of risk.

Darkfeather -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 5:58:05 AM)
The problem with your reasoning is that it leaves it up to society to determine when fantasy becomes reality. It takes that line out of our hands, the people who should know where it actually exists mind you, and puts it in the hands of strangers who make educated guesses. Completely take out the kink in this case, and it becomes even more evident. For example, in my county, it is a misdemeanor to leave your lawn unkempt (uncut grass, leaves, standing water, etc). Say one week, I just decide to not go out there and do yard work, screw the county. I IM my friends, telling them my plans, detailing how I am tired of slaving over that grass just for the sake of a government I pay taxes to, blah blah. Guess what, I would have just committed conspiracy. The county could haul me into court for conspiring to not cut my lawn, and they would have had proof to that fact. Would they have done it, not on your life. Because the papers would have a field day with conspiracy to commit lawn fraud.

tazzygirl -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 6:04:21 AM)
Cannibalism isnt a kink.

Darkfeather -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 6:21:17 AM)
Thank you for your insightful and well thought out response... But if you can provide any links or proof that Gilberto actually engaged in Cannibalism, then what he did was fantasize about it. Pretty sure that is the textbook definition of kink. May not be a popular one, or even well liked. But if you are going to defend a person's right to beat someone's butt with a wooden paddle and expect not to get persecuted, you also have to defend the guy who wants to paint his balls blue and sing Ave Maria. You can't have one kink without the other

Dyfrynt -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 6:36:56 AM)
Lafayette said "Everyone is giving their opinion. Their opinion is that the man is guilty as charged. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand." LL, this has gone round and round so many times that at this point I am thinking that Darkfeather just keeps stirring the pot for the attention. He keeps coming back for more, but he hasn't said anything different for at least 5 pages.

tazzygirl -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 6:40:32 AM)
quote: Thank you for your insightful and well thought out response... But if you can provide any links or proof that Gilberto actually engaged in Cannibalism, then what he did was fantasize about it. Pretty sure that is the textbook definition of kink. Oh goody, then you are all for pedophilia that stops at downloading photos and looking up addresses of those children, going to their schools, having lunch with them, offering to kidnap one for 5k and deliver it to someone else. After all, its a kink, right?

LafayetteLady -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 7:51:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darkfeather He was convicted of C. That is the definition of conspiracy. I even gave a clear example of that with the knife in the U.K. If you doubt it, here is a definition of conspiracy to commit: "In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence." What that means is all they need to prove is you intended to commit at some time in the near future (talked about, texted, wrote stories, etc), had done anything to "take steps", hell buying a bus ticket anywhere near a perceived target would fit that requirement. This is significantly easier than murder. But if you can provide any facts to your statement that murder is in fact easier than the above please do As for opinion, the second half of your statement is definitely opinion. You say clearly that you feel conspiracy is harder than murder. Notice, your entire statement is not just an argument against my opinion, hence why I responded Look, you obviously are not understanding the law, if you think that convicting someone of conspiracy is convicting them of the crime they conspire to commit. Look at the bold parts above. It doesn't talk at all about committing the act. I don't know where you got your info, but since it mentions what "other countries" might do, it really isn't applicable. All that is applicable in Valle's case is what United States Federal Law has to say on the matter: quote: What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is: First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy. An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy. He met those requirements plain and simple. You don't have to agree, but you weren't on the juror, which in my opinion is a good thing. You don't have to like the verdict, but that is completely irrelevant.

Darkfeather -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 8:00:48 AM)
Ok, fine. If you want to play that then sure. There is actually a society called NAMBLA that advocates just that. Don't believe me google it. For your information, as an advocate of free speech, I also stand for racist KKK members to get up and spout their hate filled rhetoric. Why? Because in order to say it's ok to say the good things in this country without worry of persecution, you have to support the bad. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical. As for Dyfrynt, sure everyone says he's guilty. Go to nytimes forum, tribune forum, hell go to starbucks, and people are saying he is guilty. But no one is giving supporting opinions. Just saying he's guilty is not having a discussion on the issue. When I give my opinions or examples, and all anyone does is quote me and pick it apart. That is just arguing with me. Not stating your opinion. For instance, I said several times that knives were illegal in the U.K. and no one even touched that. Not a word. I am still getting arguments on statements I made what, 5 pages ago?? But hey, if you want this thread to degenerate into nothing more than a slugfest of snarky quips and silly anecdotes, I can do it. I am sure this thing will get shut down pretty fast when it starts but we can go there

Darkfeather -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 8:18:41 AM)
Did I at any time say he was not guilty of conspiracy??? No. I said it is laughably easy to get convicted of conspiracy. My problem is with him getting charged in the first place, not that he was found guilty. Oh, and as for the definition of conspiracy, here ya go, straight from a defense attorney's website: http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/explanation-of-charges-for-conspiracy-to-commit-crimes I have said numerous times that my issue is not with the jurors, they did what they did with what they had to work with. I constantly bring up examples of conspiracy, how easy it is to convict, how blurry the line is between just talk and criminal prosecution. But answer me this, if you weren't on that jury, how do you know they made a correct judgement? Believe it or not, there have actually been innocent people convicted in this country. People who have been later found innocent after serving sometimes 20 years.

sexyred1 -> RE: At what point does deviant sexual mental fantasy become criminal? (3/18/2013 8:25:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dyfrynt Lafayette said "Everyone is giving their opinion. Their opinion is that the man is guilty as charged. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand." LL, this has gone round and round so many times that at this point I am thinking that Darkfeather just keeps stirring the pot for the attention. He keeps coming back for more, but he hasn't said anything different for at least 5 pages. You got it. Some people need attention, even they come off insane to get it.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875