[Nate]

Okay - remember that this guy was only cautioned for downloading child pornography. That means that he may not have actually downloaded it himself, or only did it out of curiousity but not a regular thing (consider Dino researching the availability of child porn in a recent thread).

This reminds me of a guy in Melbourne who was a registered sex offender because he had been in a relationship with a 15 year old girl when he was 18 (he's in his mid-late twenties now) - they hadn't had intercourse but he had felt her up. Just like this guy, he wasn't convicted of anything. But a new law was introduced that anyone on the register couldn't work with children - irrespective of whether they were convicted, what they did and how long ago. So this guy was fired for a stupid mistake he did a decade ago and cannot work in his chosen profession despite everyone at his school - staff and students - speaking in support of him and his pedagogical talents.

So, whilst there are not words strong enough to describe how discusting paedophilia is, people should learn not to jump to conclusions about these people. I echo Havoc's statements about many of these people being in need of help that they can't get because of the stigma attached to admitting their problem.

In terms of whether viewing child porn should be a crime, allow me to compare it to hiring a hitman to murder someone - you may not be actively performing the crime but you are certainly getting the benefits thereof.