Vatican sentences ex-diplomat to 5 years in prison for child porn

source?

If he had been a Cardinal, then he would now be free.

Here's one:
reuters.com/article/us-vatican-pornography-trial/ex-vatican-diplomat-found-guilty-of-possessing-child-pornography-idUSKBN1JJ0G1

But you can find it on all "relevant" news sides.

Stop it

Man he must have taken from the collection box or some other more nefarious deed like kissing a grown woman for this to happen. Sadly we will never know the real reason

How are the reactions in Italy about this case? Over here it was reported, but our MSM were preoccupied with stuff like the election in Turkey tomorrow, now everybody watched that game against Sweden, so it might just get swept under the carpet.

Porn?! WHAT ABOUT THE RAPISTS?!?!

Vatican is like a micronation sitting inside italy. They have their own police and court and so on.

Guess porn possession is way easier to prove.
The priest who smacked the newborn child got retired too, but only after the video of him doing it went viral and created outrage.

>Get sent to jail for being the only guy at the Vatican who knows how to work the VCR.
kek

Odd time to change policy.

CP possession isnt a real crime. Who is the victim in someone possessing images?

>CP possession isnt a real crime.
The FBI might disagree...

>Why is a religious org sentencing anything
Because it's a religious organization that owns a micronation.

Fuxk the police.

imo each case should be dealt with differently depending on the exact nature of the material, the quantity, the way it was acquired, etc etc
I believe it is legal to possess pictures/videos of children taken on nudist camps/beaches, but it shouldn't be legal to possess pics/vids of children being abused/forced into sex or other sexual behaviour.

The fucking Pope has plenty to say about U.S. immigration. Maybe he should be worrying about his priests sucking off 8 year olds.

anyone who has sex under the age of 25 or with someone under 25 is a degenerate and must hang, do not lower the age of consent

At some point it just stops being porn, simply as that. I remember we got this textbook for biology class back in high school and it had nude pictures of humans (male and female) of various ages for educational purpose. Including toddlers, kids, teens, adults, geezers. Of course I fapped to them as a horny teenager, but was that child porn? I don't think so.

>Who is the victim in someone possessing images?
The humans in the images. The market for CP creates demand for the production of new images and video - child abuse.

5 years in a cozy prison made out of marble and videogames

No, it's five years penance without luxuries even US prisoners would have. Like eating meat.

Attached: 5987020.jpg (545x326, 28K)

that's an interesting point
there are some who support the idea that the nature of the material changes according to the person who owns the material and the intent

for example:
David Hamilton photographed underage models in erotic themes and was never prosecuted or punished
BUT if it is found that someone who is under investigation for cp owns films and pics by DH that material will most likely be used to built a case against that person.

Another case is the possession of family pics of naked children.
It is of course ok for a mom+dad to take pics of their children nude (without them being sexual).
But even these innocent pics can be used as evidence of cp if they are stolen by a 3rd party (because it shows intent to use them in a bad/sexual way.

YEah, I know what you mean. Ultimately´, pretty much anything can be perverted/abused. And then it's really not much about the material but about punishing the pervert.