@A.C 09.02 and 09.41 20/08/08
Not all people that abuse/mutilate animals become serial killers but a sufficient number of serial killers started out with animals to consider such abuse as a significant precursor.
Not all people that choose to view child pornography will become paedophiles but a significant number of paedophiles possess child pornography.
A significant number of child abductions for sexual gratification end in the death of the child particularly if the abductor is a convicted paedophile.
When scouring the net you might inadvertently happen upon (I deliberately avoided ‘come across’) a dodgy site but would/should navigate away from it. You won’t get strung up for that.
If you deliberately visit such sites or create one to feed your need then you are on a slippery slope to who knows where?
Viewing images of a crime is a crime despite what AC is saying – if you are interacting with these people, no matter that it is just via the web, you may express an interest in something. If that ‘something’ isn’t catered for at that moment you can bet it will be soon. Was that ‘something’ sitting on someone else’s hard drive or was it made especially for you? Has another crime been instigated albeit ‘innocently’. How can deliberately viewing child pornography not be a crime? (barring for evidential purposes).
I’m sure a great many of The Register’s readers would not wish to attend a post mortem or a number of post mortems but a police officer has to. It’s just part of their job. Some can do it with no emotion, others can’t. It’s horses for courses. The same goes for those coppers that have to view images collected from suspected paedophiles. I know I couldn’t look at pictures or watch and listen to videos without a feeling of revulsion. It would then adversely effect how I would deal with the possessor of said items and then may cloud the issue at court. Sadly, someone has to do it.