Child Pornography and Moral Puritanism

[Argus]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.

"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."

"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."

"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Last week, a Canadian working in the United States as a teacher was sentenced in Virginia, to 14 years in prison. His crime? He was found guilty for various child pornography charges.

Nothing unusual there. A quick google search finds men of every type, old and young, priests, police officers, teachers, journalists, doctors, lawyers, sentenced to 5 years, 10 years, hell, one poor sucker in Arizona was sentenced last year to 200 years in prison. Ten years, to be served consecutively, for each of 20 pictures found on his computer. He hadn't even traded or distributed them, and hadn't paid for them. He'd just surfed on the internet, seen the pictures, and saved them.

And before you think, well, that crazy sentence will be thrown out - it was recently upheld by the court of appeals

Has the US gone insane in terms of child porn or are has that vicious streak of puritanism which has always seemed to afflict American society reared its ugly head again?

In sifting through google I find, time after time, men sentenced, some of them senior citizens, to years in prison on first offense, with no indication of ever having molested children, to long terms of imprisonment for looking at dirty pictures.

There was a strong dissent in the Arizona case, reported here and the author of the piece sums it up quite well himself.

I would never have thought that the following sentence could be considered controversial in a civilized society: It is morally and legally wrong to condemn a non-violent first-time offender to death in prison, solely for the possession (not the purchase, not the commission) of certain images.

The author goes on to voice something I have been arguing for some time, though he makes an excellent point I had not previously voiced. Such laws in the US, and to a lesser extent, in Canada, are not there so much to punish or deter, but as an expression of society's moral outrage and disgust. Punishments ought to be based on the damage done, and to throw middle-class, non-violent, first time offenders into prison for long sentences for looking at porn is patently cruel, unjust and unnecessary.

It is even more ludicrous when one considers the comparison to other crimes, including vicious, violent crimes. It seems often the case that these defendants get harsher sentences for looking at pictures than they would have gotten had they dragged some girl or boy into the bushes and raped them. Certainly the sentences can be harsher than murderers and armed robbers, to say nothing of pimps and other thugs with long and notorious criminal records.

Canada is not immune to this hysteria over child pornography, but we seem to lack that vicious moral puritanism which allows Americans to subject their fellows to cruel and unusual sentences for crimes of percieved immorality.

[lukin]

So Argus, you say that having pictures of viciously abused children is O.K.? That sickens me. The kids in these pictures have their lives ruined and you don't think this guy should get a stiff sentence. There wouldn't be child porn if guys like in the story didn't want them. This is a serious crime and I think this guy got what he deserved. Just think if it was your kids in those pictures, Argus. I can't believe you are defending this creep.

[Oleg Bach]

Child porn - whether it be the occultish practice of dysfunctional catholic priests...or the average soul stealer...is some crazy notion that you absorb the life force of the victim - It's not about sex - it's about possession..It is vampirism...and it is the worst form of dellusionism - those clipping the wings of angels should be delt with harshly...even Jesus the Christ ..mentions capital punishment once - and once only did he advocate it. "He who harms one of these little ones should have a mill stone tied to their neck and be tossed into the sea - they will wish they were never born" _ to para phrase -- I do not believe in capital punishment - nor abortion - BUT in the case of stealing a childs life ....I say EXECUTE. That would curb he soul sucking parasites!

[CANADIEN]

The fight against child pornography is not about morality. It is about defending the most at risk members of our society, children, against one of the most vicious crimes, the rape, molestation and sexual exploitation of children.

What is ludicrous is the comparison of child pornorgaphy with adult pornography. We are not talking about the Playboy channel, or hardcore stuff between consenting adults. We are talking about images of children being RAPED.

Those who who access and download child pornorgaphy, even when they do not pay, are no different from people who acquire stolen property. They contribute to a vile and dangerous criminal activity.

In the case you quote, the perp is a teacher, that is someone who is in a position of authority and responsibility over children. Not only should he rot in jail for a few years, but he should lose his teaching license. I do not have children, but I do not want people who think that there's something exciting about children being raped to be responsible for the children of others.

A few years in prison is neither harsh, nor cruel, nor unusual. And I personnally wouldn't mind if it were spent among the general prison population.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted quotation of re-copied entire Opening Post

[g_bambino]

So Argus, you say that having pictures of viciously abused children is O.K.? That sickens me.

What post did you read? He said nothing of the sort.

The US has always had a strong, religiously based, puritanical slant to its society, which obviously seeps into its justice system. I'm often equally dumbfounded by the draconian attitude towards mild drugs like marijuana - is it really so serious as to warrant a "war" against it? - or acts like music downloading. Of course, child pornography is a harmful business and those having any part in it should be punished. However, not all cases are equal, and the sentence imposed should reflect the severity of the crime. The internet is a vast collection of data (mostly porn, which is, ironically, mostly American!), and one can potentially stumble across anything at any time; I recall a story of someone being sentenced for child pornography downloading when the pictures had been installed on his computer by malware. The circumstances should thus be a highly influential factor in decisions made by judges; their job is to interpret law and render justice, not make examples out of people in order to send some message.

[CANADIEN]

What post did you read? He said nothing of the sort.

But it's clear he consider those committing these crimes to be harmless. They are not.

[g_bambino]

But it's clear he consider those committing these crimes to be harmless. They are not.

I don't think he said all people committing crimes related to child pornography are harmless; only that some are more harmful than others, which I believe is an accurate assessment.

[lukin]

I don't think he said all people committing crimes related to child pornography are harmless; only that some are more harmful than others, which I believe is an accurate assessment.

So, you are saying that SOME people who posess child porn are decent? Disgusting!

[CANADIEN]

So, you are saying that SOME people who posess child porn are decent? Disgusting!

The argument is that they are harmless if all they do is to get their kicks out of other people raping children. Which is rubbish, of course.

[Argus]

So Argus, you say that having pictures of viciously abused children is O.K.? That sickens me. The kids in these pictures have their lives ruined and you don't think this guy should get a stiff sentence. There wouldn't be child porn if guys like in the story didn't want them. This is a serious crime and I think this guy got what he deserved. Just think if it was your kids in those pictures, Argus. I can't believe you are defending this creep.

This is the essence of reactionary opinion on this subject. Let me explain to you, from my knowledge (research articles), what constitutes child pornography, and in fact, forms the vast bulk of what people download.

. Teenage girls (anything under 18 is a child) flashing or masturbating in front of their web cams for boyfriends

. Nudist pictures taken at various resorts.

. Professionally taken photos, ie, (mostly soft core) child porn, from the 70s, when it was legal in a number of countries.

To suggest that these lives were ruined is ludicrous, and stems from that ancient moral priggery which suggested that a woman who had been raped had been "ruined" forevermore. She was tainted, and would, in any event, never recover.

It is my underestanding that in the great majority of what the laws consider to be child porn, we're speaking of mostly soft core, ie, no actual sex involved except between willing teenagers.

The final source of such pictures can best be described as souvenirs. Pedophiles molest a child or children, and in the process of this, take pictures. One would think people would not be dumb enough to share pictures of their crimes with strangers, but that does not appear to be the case with these people. Still and all, there are extraordinarily few cases where the pictures were the actual motivation of the crime. So eliminating the picture does nothing to eliminate the crime.

We have to remember that paedophilia is not a life choice, it is a psychological disease, and we do not punish people for being sick. There has never been any actual attempt to show that people who download images have somehow or other caused harm to the individuals in the pictures, but it is often stated as such. And in any event, the damage is, at best, an abuse of privacy, and hardly necessitates multiple years in prison on a first offense.

[Argus]

So, you are saying that SOME people who posess child porn are decent? Disgusting!

It is extraordinarily easy to find on the internet, cases of men who have lived their entire lives as fine, upstanding members of their communities without ever having committed a crime or molested a child. Priests, teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, cops and soldiers. We have 68 year old grandfathers going to prison for five or ten years because they downloaded some dirty pictures.

It's absurd and unjust.

[Argus]

The argument is that they are harmless if all they do is to get their kicks out of other people raping children. Which is rubbish, of course.

Why is it rubbish? Explain. This is something that those who favor these moral purity type laws rarely bother to go into because they simply assume it. Have you read anything on the subject? Anything from a clinical/research/psychiatric/criminology perspective?

And again, you are presuming that child pornography = child rape. I don't have the statistics with me any more. I read them a couple of years back, and I've been trying to locate them, but apparently, the vast, vast bulk of child porn on the internet is forty years old, and is mostly made up of soft core pictures. Most of the newer stuff is actually teenagers doing the videos for kicks, not because someone forced them into it.

[Argus]

But it's clear he consider those committing these crimes to be harmless. They are not.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. Pornography is part of every sex offender's life, as far as I've seen or read. Thus one would presume that most child molesters also have porn and use porn. They are certainly not harmless.

But rarely in my reading of these cases, is the person sentenced to multiple years in prison even suspected, much less convicted, of child molesting.

[Argus]

The fight against child pornography is not about morality. It is about defending the most at risk members of our society, children, against one of the most vicious crimes, the rape, molestation and sexual exploitation of children.

Yes, that is the party line. It has no basis in fact, however.

When the Conservatives introduced our child porn laws they were very strongly opposed by the legal community, the arts community, as well as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The legal community pointed out that molesting children was already illegal, as was creating pictures of that, as was selling pictures. Distributing them was banned under obscenity provisions. Furthermore, the incidence of them was considered generally quite low anyway. There was no need to make possession illegal, and it would catch up a lot of harmless people.

No one has at any time ever demonstrated that, lacking a monetary reward, which mostly doesn't exist, pornography is going to cause child molestation.

What is ludicrous is the comparison of child pornorgaphy with adult pornography. We are not talking about the Playboy channel, or hardcore stuff between consenting adults. We are talking about images of children being RAPED.

Actually, for the most part, we're talking about (95%) soft core pictures, mostly just nudes.

Those who who access and download child pornorgaphy, even when they do not pay, are no different from people who acquire stolen property. They contribute to a vile and dangerous criminal activity.

In what way do they contribute to it? It is my understanding the vast majority of the stuff available on the internet is decades old. If you could, please show me how someone who downloads such a picture today is contributing to the molestation or exploitation of a child when the crime might well have happened before the downloader was even born.

A few years in prison is neither harsh, nor cruel, nor unusual. And I personnally wouldn't mind if it were spent among the general prison population.

And you think moral outrage has nothing to do with this? You want this person beaten, perhaps killed, not because they actually personally ever harmed a child, but because they have a sexual interest in children.

[CANADIEN]

This is the essence of reactionary opinion on this subject. Let me explain to you, from my knowledge (research articles), what constitutes child pornography, and in fact, forms the vast bulk of what people download.

. Teenage girls (anything under 18 is a child) flashing or masturbating in front of their web cams for boyfriends

. Nudist pictures taken at various resorts.

. Professionally taken photos, ie, (mostly soft core) child porn, from the 70s, when it was legal in a number of countries.

To suggest that these lives were ruined is ludicrous, and stems from that ancient moral priggery which suggested that a woman who had been raped had been "ruined" forevermore. She was tainted, and would, in any event, never recover.

It is my underestanding that in the great majority of what the laws consider to be child porn, we're speaking of mostly soft core, ie, no actual sex involved except between willing teenagers.

The final source of such pictures can best be described as souvenirs. Pedophiles molest a child or children, and in the process of this, take pictures. One would think people would not be dumb enough to share pictures of their crimes with strangers, but that does not appear to be the case with these people. Still and all, there are extraordinarily few cases where the pictures were the actual motivation of the crime. So eliminating the picture does nothing to eliminate the crime.

We have to remember that paedophilia is not a life choice, it is a psychological disease, and we do not punish people for being sick. There has never been any actual attempt to show that people who download images have somehow or other caused harm to the individuals in the pictures, but it is often stated as such. And in any event, the damage is, at best, an abuse of privacy, and hardly necessitates multiple years in prison on a first offense.

I'm not concerned about teenagers stupid enough to film their sexcapades, or nudists stupid enough to take pictures.

Interesting though the way you dismiss the harm caused by child pornography withy callous statements such as "pedophiles are sick, and we do not people punish people for being sick" or "the damage, is at best, a violation of privacy". Being sick is no excuse for the commission of a crime.

[g_bambino]

So, you are saying that SOME people who posess child porn are decent? Disgusting!

Define "decent".

_[copyed.]

Edited August 15, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The argument is that they are harmless if all they do is to get their kicks out of other people raping children. Which is rubbish, of course.

Which argument is "the" argument you refer to?

[CANADIEN]

It is extraordinarily easy to find on the internet, cases of men who have lived their entire lives as fine, upstanding members of their communities without ever having committed a crime or molested a child. Priests, teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, cops and soldiers. We have 68 year old grandfathers going to prison for five or ten years because they downloaded some dirty pictures.

It's absurd and unjust.

They are more than dirty pictures. According to a study oconducted in 2000-2001 iin the USA and quoted on the Web site of the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children:

- 40& of people posessing child pornography had also committed child abuse;

- 80% had images depicting penetration

- 21% had images depicting the use of violence (bondage, torture, etc.)

- 39 % had images that included video and sound (40 year old videos, perhaps)

- while 79% had images that didn't depict "sex", only one 1% oonly had non-sexual images

[CANADIEN]

Which argument is "the" argument you refer to?

Punishments ought to be based on the damage done, and to throw middle-class, non-violent, first time offenders into prison for long sentences for looking at porn is patently cruel, unjust and unnecessary.

[Argus]

They are more than dirty pictures. According to a study oconducted in 2000-2001 iin the USA and quoted on the Web site of the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children:

- 40& of people posessing child pornography had also committed child abuse;

- 80% had images depicting penetration

- 21% had images depicting the use of violence (bondage, torture, etc.)

- 39 % had images that included video and sound (40 year old videos, perhaps)

- while 79% had images that didn't depict "sex", only one 1% oonly had non-sexual images

Let's examine the statements above. Forty % of people possessing child porn had also committed child abuse. This is the only definitive statement, but it runs contrary to what I've read. I am willing to examine it, though. Why did you not provide a link? Who conducted this study?

The others don't really mean much. 80% had images depicting penetration? Perhaps, but what does that mean? It doesn't mean that 80% of child porn images depicted penetration. It just means that they had at least one porno picture which depicted penetration Did they have 1000 soft core images and 1 which showed penetration? Were the images which depicted penetration of child porn, or were they adult porn?

21% had images depicting violence, including bondage... I don't consider bondage to necessarily be violence, btw. But again, this does not mean 21% of child porn images have violence. It just means that, presuming the study is correct, of those who had child porn, 21% also had bondage pictures. Again, this is essentially meaningless as people who collect porn tend to have all kinds of porn.

What I am really interested in and will continue to attempt to find, are statistical studies on child porn itself and what constitutes the bulk of it. Organizations which police this stuff have vast libraries of it, so such statistics ought to be readily available, but aren't.

[lukin]

Let's examine the statements above. Forty % of people possessing child porn had also committed child abuse. This is the only definitive statement, but it runs contrary to what I've read. I am willing to examine it, though. Why did you not provide a link? Who conducted this study?

The others don't really mean much. 80% had images depicting penetration? Perhaps, but what does that mean? It doesn't mean that 80% of child porn images depicted penetration. It just means that they had at least one porno picture which depicted penetration Did they have 1000 soft core images and 1 which showed penetration? Were the images which depicted penetration of child porn, or were they adult porn?

21% had images depicting violence, including bondage... I don't consider bondage to necessarily be violence, btw. But again, this does not mean 21% of child porn images have violence. It just means that, presuming the study is correct, of those who had child porn, 21% also had bondage pictures. Again, this is essentially meaningless as people who collect porn tend to have all kinds of porn.

What I am really interested in and will continue to attempt to find, are statistical studies on child porn itself and what constitutes the bulk of it. Organizations which police this stuff have vast libraries of it, so such statistics ought to be readily available, but aren't.

You are all over the place.

Argus, can people who get their jollies from child pornography be rehabilitated?

[CANADIEN]

And you think moral outrage has nothing to do with this? You want this person beaten, perhaps killed, not because they actually personally ever harmed a child, but because they have a sexual interest in children.

And why should I not be morally outraged when people contribute to grave harm against children? It is do who downplay it or think it should not be treated as the crime that it is who should question themselves.

[CANADIEN]

The claim that "most child pron is 40 year old or more anyways" is so ridiculous that it would be laughable if the topic was different.

Forty years ago, adults were taking pictures of children naked, or being abused, and that's what is now circulated for the most part. But somehow, less of it happens today.

Yeah right.

Child pornography on the internet is rising. And you can bet their users do not content themselves with seeing the same old photos again and again.

[CANADIEN]

Let's examine the statements above. Forty % of people possessing child porn had also committed child abuse. This is the only definitive statement, but it runs contrary to what I've read. I am willing to examine it, though. Why did you not provide a link? Who conducted this study?

The others don't really mean much. 80% had images depicting penetration? Perhaps, but what does that mean? It doesn't mean that 80% of child porn images depicted penetration. It just means that they had at least one porno picture which depicted penetration Did they have 1000 soft core images and 1 which showed penetration? Were the images which depicted penetration of child porn, or were they adult porn?

21% had images depicting violence, including bondage... I don't consider bondage to necessarily be violence, btw. But again, this does not mean 21% of child porn images have violence. It just means that, presuming the study is correct, of those who had child porn, 21% also had bondage pictures. Again, this is essentially meaningless as people who collect porn tend to have all kinds of porn.

What I am really interested in and will continue to attempt to find, are statistical studies on child porn itself and what constitutes the bulk of it. Organizations which police this stuff have vast libraries of it, so such statistics ought to be readily available, but aren't.

The percentage of what shows what is irrelevant. The fact remains that the vast majority of owners of child pornography own at least some images of children being sexually abused.

[g_bambino]

What I am really interested in and will continue to attempt to find, are statistical studies on child porn itself and what constitutes the bulk of it. Organizations which police this stuff have vast libraries of it, so such statistics ought to be readily available, but aren't.

An interesting point that takes us back to the origin of this thread. Perhaps hefty penalties are blanket applied to anyone even remotely associated with the farthest fringe of child pornography for the same reason impartial statistics are never compiled and released: fear. The religious moralists have made the subject so taboo and vile that nobody now dares make the delve into the subject required for rational and logical analysis of it, instead making the far, far easier resort to mass and base emotion as justification for any quick, even if unnecessarily brutal, reaction. Why would many want to do otherwise, when the usual reaction to any reasonable questions is always something along the lines of "YOU'RE A FUCKING SICK PERVERT!"?