N.L. man not guilty of possessing child porn...sex doll he bought was child-sized

[TorontoMelanieJolliet 4458]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/n-l-man-found-not-guilty-of-possessing-child-pornography-in-sex-doll-trial

 

Excerpts:

 

ST. JOHN’S, N.L. — A Newfoundland man has been found not guilty of possessing child pornography after a judge determined it was not proven he knew the sex doll he ordered was child-sized.

Judge Mark Pike said he accepted expert testimony that the doll was child pornography, and said that Kenneth Harrisson’s stated reasons for ordering it did not ring true.

But the judge concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Harrisson knew what was in the box delivered to his St. John’s home in 2013.

During the provincial court trial, Harrisson testified that he meant to order a lifelike, adult-sized sex doll for companionship to replace his son, who died in infancy decades earlier.

Pike said Thursday said Harrisson’s explanation was far-fetched, but he was left with too many doubts about what Harrisson saw on the web page the day he ordered it.

...

The case was poised to set a precedent around what constitutes child pornography when no real child is involved

Harrisson, 54, was found not guilty of possessing child pornography and mailing obscene material. He was also acquitted on two charges under the federal Customs Act of smuggling and possession of prohibited goods.

Harrisson had ordered the doll from Japan in 2013, but it was intercepted on its way to his St. John’s home.

Harrisson had testified that he did a Google search of the term “sex doll” and chose the photo that showed the most “male-like” face to resemble his son who would have been around 25 in 2013.

He said the doll delivered to his home was not what he ordered because he meant to order an adult doll named “Carol.” He said he did not intend to have sex with the doll.

[waterat 20911]

Wow. Okay, so that took 5 years to resolve. There's another thread on 'sex dolls' and definitely not my thing but don't we have more important things for the courts to be doing? For example preventing and establishing that human trafficing and child pornography should NOT be conflated with sex work.

[Guest]

   

  To mirror what I said in that thread. If no actual kids are involved, I don't really care.

Yes, it's creepy. But a lot of legal things are.

  The courts and lawmakers should put more energy in defining what is actual child porn. A lot of questionnable content is legally published and distributed in the name of art or certain family lifestyles. Even if those don't normally involve sexual activities, some are far more suggestive than a plastic child size doll.

   With so many grey areas on the matter, law enforcement are wasting their time on the wrong people.

    Fix the law and end the ambiguities.

  

[TorontoMelanieJolliet 4458]

ask a person who has been abused as a child. There are NO grey areas! In fact its quite clear. Images of children, used any way one pleases, does affect real human children. Like when these people interact in whatever capacity with a human child. It's your uncle, your neighbour, your teacher, your bus driver, the server at your fav food place. Ever wonder why, as a male, you have no clue as to the subtleties of sexual attention? It's because you obviously haven't experienced it from the receiving side.

 

Its very hard to nuance words to satisfy the law to explain inborn human instinct. Some things can only be felt and not explained in a way that would allow consistency across the board, to stand up for every case.

 

5 years gave him plenty of time to hone his story telling abilities. They didn't buy his bs but they couldn't prove anything because the police neglected to do their job. Probably because the accused offered and when someone offers to be helpful, us Canadians think oh then he must be telling the truth. No need to actually investigate.

[Guest]

  I understand this is a sensitive subject. But unless you got evidence he touched a kid, you can't put him jail because he uses toys to manage his urges.

  And there are plenty of grey areas. A picture showing half the nipples of a 17yo is considered to some as child porn, while naked young teens in movies or publications about nudism are considered fine.

  As for "neglected to do their job", what do you want police to do? Stakeout his house for 5 years and see if any kids walk in? I'm not defending the morality of the guy. But the police can't do much when all they got is a doll and no victims.

[TorontoMelanieJolliet 4458]

Um it said in the article that he offered up his computer to the police. They then might have been able to see what he saw when he ordered from the website, in his cache. I'm not the one saying stakeout for 5 years. The ARTICLE says the police neglected to take the guy up on his offer to look over his computer (even though he could have cleared his cache). So I don't want the police to do anything. Man, you have a way of using your assumptions that really inflame a conversation or observation, plus you don't read very well. #truth #sorrynotsorry

 

 

[TorontoMelanieJolliet 4458]

Also, unlike you, I don't sit here tryna think what should be done about everything. I read it, it was interesting and maybe historic, and I put it up. Discussion is good and thought and knowledge about things that go on that should be addressed now and/or in the future. Please stop tryna be the voice that puts an end to others. It has a way of shutting things down and is actually quite depressing to find out all these facets that make up your view of the world. It's very...um...rigid, and basically done. There seems to be nothing you don't know and nothing left you need to learn.

 

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, TorontoMelanieJolliet said:

There seems to be nothing you don't know and nothing left you need to learn.

  I'm learning everyday. But this is the second time you created a thread about the same topic. There were mixed opinions the first time. Not sure you expected things to be different.

  We all agree child abusers should serve time in jail and be castrated. But when there no evidences of a crime or complaints, we can't simply storm in someone's home and arrest them for no reasons. No matter the situation, the Charter of Rights and presumption of innocence should remain.

  I again understand your position. But it's up to lawmakers to create and rewrite laws, not law enforcement.

  

  

[Phaedrus 209521]

On 6/5/2019 at 3:28 PM, waterat said:

Wow. Okay, so that took 5 years to resolve. There's another thread on 'sex dolls' and definitely not my thing but don't we have more important things for the courts to be doing? For example preventing and establishing that human trafficing and child pornography should NOT be conflated with sex work.

To be fair, I don't think the courts are too bad on this, because by the time something comes to court you have to prove a case and you have to have things like facts and evidence. The problem lies in the realm of politics and public opinion, where facts and evidence are absolutely not required.