Child Pornography and Moral Puritanism

[Argus]

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.

That is possible. They might well own "at least some images" of children being abused. That does not justify the death penalty.

Bear in mind that pedophilia is a psychiatric disease. When I hear about a schizophrenic who pushed someone in front of a subway, I don't get angry at the schizophrenic, I get angry at our lousy mental health system which lets so many people slip through the cracks.

[CANADIEN]

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!"?

Now, I do not think anybody here is accusing anyone of being a child pornographer or molestor, if that's what you mean.

Considering the harm done to children by sexual abuse, and the link between that monstruous crime and the sexual depiction of children, there is nothing irrational in making sure that such activities are punished to the full extent of the law.

[CANADIEN]

That is possible. They might well own "at least some images" of children being abused. That does not justify the death penalty.

Bear in mind that pedophilia is a psychiatric disease. When I hear about a schizophrenic who pushed someone in front of a subway, I don't get angry at the schizophrenic, I get angry at our lousy mental health system which lets so many people slip through the cracks.

A schizophrene withiut his/her med has no control on how he perceives reality. A pedophile still has the capacity the refrain from committing harm.

[g_bambino]

Bear in mind that pedophilia is a psychiatric disease.

Perhaps I'm incorrect in my interpretation of the word, but I take "disease" to mean something biological. Thus, while I wouldn't say the result is completely within the individual's control, I wouldn't classify pædophilia as a disease, as it still involves a lot of personal choices.

I would also think it's important to note that not everyone who's ever looked at child pornography should be deemed a pædophile; looking at an image does not necessarily equate to loving (the definition of the term "philia") the content.

[g_bambino]

Now, I do not think anybody here is accusing anyone of being a child pornographer or molestor, if that's what you mean.

Considering the harm done to children by sexual abuse, and the link between that monstruous crime and the sexual depiction of children, there is nothing irrational in making sure that such activities are punished to the full extent of the law.

No, no, that's certainly not what I mean. But there is already an irrational intonation from some here that any defence of any person who's even briefly come into contact with child pornography equates with a support for the abuse of kids. It's ridiculous. The production of child pornography - though, Argus is right to question what the term actually includes - can indeed harm children, often quite severely. But there's a huge distance between those who make the stuff at one end of the line and those who inadvertently stumble across the product at the other, with a range of different types of people and circumstances in between, from the habitual collector to the mildly (if morbidly) curious. It's my argument that the punishment doled out should accord with the criminal's place on that continuum; the child porn producer should spend decades in jail, but the person who happens to have a couple of images on his or her hard drive should not; a few years of internet-free house arrest and then parole should suffice for that.

[CANADIEN]

No, no, that's certainly not what I mean. But there is already an irrational intonation from some here that any defence of any person who's even briefly come into contact with child pornography equates with a support for the abuse of kids. It's ridiculous. The production of child pornography - though, Argus is right to question what the term actually includes - can indeed harm children, often quite severely. But there's a huge distance between those who make the stuff at one end of the line and those who inadvertently stumble across the product at the other, with a range of different types of people and circumstances in between, from the habitual collector to the mildly (if morbidly) curious. It's my argument that the punishment doled out should accord with the criminal's place on that continuum; the child porn producer should spend decades in jail, but the person who happens to have a couple of images on his or her hard drive should not; a few years of internet-free house arrest and then parole should suffice for that.

I have one word for judges and prosecutors who would send to jail people who stumble across child pornog - imbeciles. This is not what we are talking here.

Nobody here is saying that the same punishment should be metered to the producers, the distributors and the owners. But the wilful owwwwning of child pornography is not harmless, and a slap on the wrist (no internet, probation) is not good enough.

[g_bambino]

I have one word for judges and prosecutors who would send to jail people who stumble across child pornog - imbeciles. This is not what we are talking here.

I would agree with you; but, given that the original post of this thread revolved around an individual in the US being sent to jail for 200 years for the possession of 20 child porn images, I thought we were talking about just that.

[CANADIEN]

I would agree with you; but, given that the original post of this thread revolved around an individual in the US being sent to jail for 200 years for the possession of 20 child porn images, I thought we were talking about just that.

The example was used as the departure point for an argument that we should basically just look the other way. We can't do that.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... It's my argument that the punishment doled out should accord with the criminal's place on that continuum; the child porn producer should spend decades in jail, but the person who happens to have a couple of images on his or her hard drive should not; a few years of internet-free house arrest and then parole should suffice for that.

There is another Canadian perv (Arthur Lelland Sayler ) in custody down Mexico way; he was arrested with 4,000,000 images. He is looking at life in prison. I guess Mexico is "puritanical" too.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Canadian+a...7506/story.html

As for house arrest and parole, Canadian law enforcement has been frustrated by such lax sentencing for years:

TOO MANY OFFENDERS TO ARREST

The Landslide investigation alone (see more) gave the Toronto Child Exploitation unit more than 241 names. This unit is one of the few police units in Canada that actually investigates child porn on the internet.

Of the 2329 Canadian leads in the Landslide database, almost 2000 have never been looked at by the police. That's because most communities simply don't have the will or the resources or the officers who are trained to do the job.

"There is an awful lot of them. That's the worst part, we worked really hard in Toronto to try and address this issue and the harder we work it just feels like we're scraping the tip of the iceberg," says Detective Sgt. Paul Gillespie.

Police say stricter laws with better enforcement would make their job easier. They want sentences for child pornography to have a minimum mandatory jail time. They would also like to collect DNA for a national databank of child sex offenders and raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/landslide/laws.html

So perhaps the practical lessons learned by child pornographers is to practice in Canada, because those "puritanical " Americans or Mexicans will lock your ass up for ever!

[Argus]

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.

I will see if I can find the actual study. However, there are bits and pieces of such conclusions to be found in various places. For example, the following site mentions it in passing.

Adult sexual interest in children greatly predates the Internet, and earlier forms of production still remain important. In the Internet material that we have access to, we estimate that some 85 -90% is older than 10-15 years, with a large amount of that dating from the 1960's and 70's.

The Nature and Dimensions of Child Pornography on the Internet

In addition, the following site is terrific, and deals with the fearmongering statistics often found on this subject, including the ones you presented above.

This research paper contains information about various alarming and sensational, but out-of-date, false and/or misleading 'statistics' concerning the prevalence of 'child pornography' material on Internet Web sites, etc., which appeared in Australian media reports/articles, government agency reports, etc., in 2008 and 2009.

While sometimes statistical exaggerations are not important, those referred to herein are being used to directly exaggerate the prevalence and hence risk level of certain threats, and to indirectly weaken the position of those attempting to critically assess the nature of the threats, and whether proposed public policy solutions are effective and proportionate.

Statistics Laundering; False and fantastic figures

I also came across this, which is older but gives a fascinating insight into how the child porn scares began, and on the scaremongering based on invented information which accompanied it.

It speaks about that period in the very early seventies when child porn was legal in the US, and for a few years longer in Europe. I didn't see a breakdown in present day content as to when the porn was created but did find a content analyes which indicated only about 18% of what they examined could be described as "hard core", ie, including genital contact or penetration. Like the earlier site it shows how statistics have been invented and promulgated over the years.

The Trade in Child Pornography

Edited August 15, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

You are all over the place.

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

I haven't done any research into what treatments are available for pedophiles, if that's what you mean.

But I'm not at all sure you can even describe all of those interested in the legal definition of child pornography in that way.

Let me use an example I have often used before. Tracy Lords. For those unacquainted with the young lady, she used false ID to pose for Penthouse magazine at the tender age of 15. I had that magazine, and in fact, turned it up in the bottom of a box of old magazines and newspapers four or five years back. Tracy Lords is something like 38D-24-36, and certainly looked to be the 22 years of age she claimed. After her Penthouse layout became a huge hit she starred in numerous x-rated videos. She was not the top earner in the industry perhaps but she was among them - extremely popular. After her true age emerged all of her stuff was retroactively declared child pornography.

Now if you were to look at pictures and videos of her, would you really be considered a pedophile? Those pictures, from what I understand, would not interest pedophiles, who only lust after pre-pubescent children. The law, however, makes no distinction between those movies, and a video depicting the rape of a six year old.

And btw, I threw out the magazine, very quickly indeed. Didn't even put it into one of my garbage bags. I threw it down a garbage chute by itself.

Addendum. Came across this. Apparently a lot of teenagers are getting charged with child porn for sending each other pictures.

Jim Brown, a school officer at Glen Este High School in Ohio, told the Cincinnati Enquirer: “If I were to go through the cell phones in this building right now of 1,500 students, I would venture to say that half to two-thirds have indecent photos, either of themselves or somebody else in school."

Teen Sexting Craze

Edited August 15, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

I have one word for judges and prosecutors who would send to jail people who stumble across child pornog - imbeciles. This is not what we are talking here.

In some states, in fact, in the case of the 68 year old man sent to prison in one of my earlier cites, the judge has little choice. In his state, there was a 5 year mandatory minimum.

Nobody here is saying that the same punishment should be metered to the producers, the distributors and the owners.

And yet it is. I put it to you that if you rape a child, you are unlikely to be given 200 years in prison on a first offense as happened to that poor schmuck in Arizona.

[but the wilful owwwwning of child pornography is not harmless,

Explain the harm then. I have yet to find any sociological/psycological study which demonstrates it. What I have found is an awful lot of "advocacy studies" which are the bane of statistics. But even they have not been able to quantify any actual harm.

[Argus]

There is another Canadian perv (Arthur Lelland Sayler ) in custody down Mexico way; he was arrested with 4,000,000 images. He is looking at life in prison. I guess Mexico is "puritanical" too.

Well, I have to question the 4 million images to start with. How does one even collect four million images? I mean, if they were just of trees or birds. Who has four million images? How does one get four million images? Pardon me my doubt as to whether there are a few copies or duplicates involved but I'll wait to see.

I have taken care to only quote academic reports, because if there's one thing I've learned when looking into this, it's that media sensationalism makes almost everything they say wildly overblown. And police agencies, eager to play up their importance - and scare people so they can get more funding - are often consciously contributing to that. Numbers get invented, quoted, then re-quoted and re-attributed until they're everywhere and it's almost impossible to verify them.

You might find these amusing. They're attempts to confirm numbers.

Sex, Lies and Statistics

How Big is the Online Kiddy Porn Industry

[g_bambino]

So perhaps the practical lessons learned by child pornographers is to practice in Canada, because those "puritanical " Americans or Mexicans will lock your ass up for ever!

Yea, just like television producers know to produce in Canada, because those puritanical Americans will go into apoplectic fits and slap a multi-million dollar fine on you if you show a female breast with nipple covered for a fraction of a second on "family" television. Same tendency to overreact.

_[sp.]

Edited August 15, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The example was used as the departure point for an argument that we should basically just look the other way. We can't do that.

Well, maybe I missed something, but I really didn't get that out of anyone's posts. It seemed to me that the concern was over the severity of punnishment not matching that of the crime, not that punnishment should be avoided all-together.

[CANADIEN]

Explain the harm then. I have yet to find any sociological/psycological study which demonstrates it. What I have found is an awful lot of "advocacy studies" which are the bane of statistics. But even they have not been able to quantify any actual harm.

Actually, why don't YOU try to prove that the sexual exploitation children, that is tehir use in order to ehlp some perverts get off on kiddie porn, has no harmful effect. One does not need studies to know it causes harm... only use of plain 'ole common sense.

[Argus]

And why should I not be morally outraged when people contribute to grave harm against children?

I think you should be morally outraged at such pictures and videos. I think you should feel moral outrage towards those who took those pictures and videos, and even those who sell them. I think you should feel somewhat disgusted by those who view them. But I do not think that your moral outrage, or mine, ought to be the basis of cruel and unusual punishment.

I am more outraged at a pimp who seduces a teenage girl with false promises of love, gets her hooked on drugs, and puts her on the street amid beatings and threats. Yet what is the punishment whenever such people, people who inevitably have long criminal records are caught? A couple of years if we're lucky.

It is do who downplay it or think it should not be treated as the crime that it is who should question themselves.

I have always had a keen sense of justice. Many of my posts have that in mind. I despise those who hurt others and get slight sentences for it, just as I despise police who abuse the trust we put in them to unjustly harm innocents. I simply do not see the harm in someone downloading an image, perhaps an image created twenty years earlier, and viewing it in the privacy of his own home. I do not mean to say that it should be openly permitted. But I do not think we should be putting people into prison for this alone. Let alone in prison for tens of years.

[Argus]

Actually, why don't YOU try to prove that the sexual exploitation children, that is tehir use in order to ehlp some perverts get off on kiddie porn, has no harmful effect. One does not need studies to know it causes harm... only use of plain 'ole common sense.

Well first of all, you are committing the cardinal sin of demanding I prove a negative.

Prove to me that your posts here on this forum, have never traumatized anyone to the point of suicide! Go ahead. Prove it.

Do you know how many people have sexually explicit pictures of themselves on the internet, mostly against their will? I'm talking about all those thousands and tens of thousands of people, mostly young women, whose pictures and videos you can find all over the internet, often taken by lovers in trust, or by themselves in front of web cams or mirrors, and now given out to everyone to admire. What a betrayal of trust that is. Yet, by and large, they cope, somehow.

I'm not arguing that the children who are sexually assaulted or molested suffer no harmful effect. I'm stating that the fact such pictures are on the internet years later is a fact. And the person who bears the guilt for such things is the one who took the picture/video, and the one who uploaded it. But years later, how does the original victim even know when Joe Smith of Lancaster Michigan downloads one of their images? And if they don't know - and they cannot, then how can they be harmed by his actions?

[jdobbin]

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.

I have not seen an analysis of the differences in Canada and the U.S. on the subject so it is hard to give an evaluation.

Sentencing anyone to life in prison has to be measured against past criminal behaviour, the severity of the crime committed, justice and rehabilitation. In many cases now, it has to be measured against the costs the state will incur long term.

In the case cited, it seems that a life sentence was decided. It is hard to imagine that this doesn't qualify as excessive.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

While I think some of the examples are definitely "cruel and unusual punishment," I hardly think accusations of "moral puritanism" is appropriate. Who can say anger at crimes against children is "puritanical?"

[bush_cheney2004]

While I think some of the examples are definitely "cruel and unusual punishment," I hardly think accusations of "moral puritanism" is appropriate. Who can say anger at crimes against children is "puritanical?"

They can....because it doesn't jibe with their assessment of what is fair or legal in another nation.

FAIR NOTICE: No breaks for Canadian kiddy pornograhers or traffickers in the USA....sorry.

Edited August 16, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

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.

A former teacher at an elite Montreal prep school was sentenced in Stafford, Va., Monday to 14 years in a U.S. prison for sex crimes involving children.

He pleaded guilty in May 2009 to eight charges, including reproducing and distributing child pornography, attempting to take indecent liberties with a child and soliciting a minor for sexual activities.

link

Damn the puritans who punish this kind of behavior, eh?

[tango]

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.

It's very disturbing that you seem determined to dismiss the violent and destructive impact of child porn, and insist on distorting the facts presented to you (with a viable reference) while admitting that you actually know very little about the research on the topic.

From the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children reference provided to you:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazin...;issue_id=32007

Offenders and Victims

There are several misconceptions about child pornography. Some believe child pornography refers to baby-in-the-bathtub pictures and others are under the impression that child pornography images are 19-year-old women dressed up in pigtails and schoolgirl uniforms. Neither of these descriptions constitutes child pornography. Child pornography is not pictures of teenagers romping on a beach; it is pictures of children, often babies in diapers, being violently molested. Not only did these children suffer the initial sexual victimization, they will continue to be exploited every time their image is traded online among individuals who use these images to fuel their sexual desire for children. These traded images are photographs of actual crime scenes.

...

In the first four years of CVIP, law enforcement has notified NCMEC of more than 900 child victims rescued from the hands of their abusers.

Adult porn is a matter of personal preference and consenting partners to the creation of images.

Non consensual sexual exploitation of adults to create porn images, however, is a violent crime.

Children never consent to sexual violation. It's an entirely different issue than consensual adult porn and cannot be dismissed as offhandedly as you try to do.

In terms of punishment, it's a matter of protection of children from the sexual violence that sustains the 'industry'. Lifetime protection suits me just fine, and unless convinced otherwise with rational argument and facts, I assume the courts are doing their job of determining the danger posed by a particular criminal according to the nature of the material in his/her possession.

You've said nothing to convince me otherwise, and plenty to cause concern.

Edited August 16, 2009 by tango

[kimmy]

I think Argus is trying to highlight that hysteria and outrage have eclipsed sound judgment when it comes to sentencing these crimes.

The guy sentenced to 200 years for possessing pictures of child pornography is absurd. You can't even get 200 years in prison for molesting REAL CHILDREN!

I'm all for stamping out child abuse, but that is absurdly out of proportion to the crime. That's simply not consistent with principles of law and order that are shared in Canada, the United States, England, and Australia.

That's hardly the only example of outrage bypassing reason on this issue. We had a thread earlier where a guy was tried and convicted of child pornography charges for having "Simpsons porn" on his computer.

-k

Edited August 16, 2009 by kimmy

[bush_cheney2004]

The guy sentenced to 200 years for possessing pictures of child pornography is absurd. You can't even get 200 years in prison for molesting REAL CHILDREN!

Yes you can...multiple counts...consecutive sentences.

I'm all for stamping out child abuse, but that is absurdly out of proportion to the crime. That's simply not consistent with principles of law and order that are shared in Canada, the United States, England, and Australia.

Many principles are not shared......that is not relevant.