Child Pornography and Moral Puritanism

[Guest American Woman]

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!

As has already been pointed out, you're wrong. You most definitely can get 200 years in prison for molesting real children.

I think Argus is trying to paint the United States as "puritanical," and as has happened in other threads he's started, he's misstating his information. I already clarified the case regarding the teacher from Canada sentenced in Virginia in my post here.

Now I'll clarify another. Here's what Argus has to say: 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.

Here's the reality about that case, from the link you cited, btw: The state’s brief said that after Mr. Berger turned down a plea bargain, the prosecutor whittled the case to 20 counts out of fear of “deluging the jury” with highly graphic and disturbing images. The police had found the images in Mr. Berger’s possession after learning that his credit card number had been used to buy contraband images from a child pornography Web site based in Dallas.

So the "poor sucker" refused a plea bargain and the case was "whittled down" to 20 counts for fear of disturbing the jury with "disturbing images." And note that the police only found the images after learning that his credit card had been used to buy the images. In other words, the "poor sucker" evidently had paid for them.

And I would like to highlight one other paragraph of the link you cited:

His appeal said that in most states, sentences for similar crimes would run concurrently, and an offender would serve no more than five years, with the additional possibility of probation or early release. Both are barred under Arizona law. Had the offense been prosecuted under federal law, Mr. Berger’s brief said, the federal guidelines would have provided a five-year sentence.

So "in most states" he wouldn't have even received such a sentence. Under federal law his sentence would have been a five-year sentence. Yet evidently this case is evidence that the United States is puritanical.

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.

Checking out that link I see: In Australia’s New South Wales Supreme Court, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person,” reports the Herald Sun.

That example happened in "puritanical" Australia, and has nothing to do with the United States or our Eighth Amendment.

I, too, am all for stamping out child abuse, and I consider child pornography to be a terrible form of abuse. One cannot minimize the effect it has on the children involved; children who have no say, no choice, in the matter. The "poor suckers" who seek child pornography, on the other hand, have made a deliberate choice to do so, in spite of knowledge of the laws. (And if they have no knowledge, being adults and therefore capable of finding out what they are, they only have themselves to blame).

Edited August 16, 2009 by American Woman

[Argus]

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?"

Well it is not crimes against children which we are speaking about here. No one grows angrier at crimes against the innocent than I do, and no one has as long and consistent a record on this web site for demanding stronger, sterner punishment for those who commit such crimes as I do.

I simply do not see how an otherwise law-abiding person who has never harmed a fly can be thrown into prison for years for viewing pictures he downloaded from the internet. I mean, if he was paying someone, and you could demonstrate that he was thus contributing to the molestation/abuse/exploitation of children then I could see a case being made. But that is rarely the situation.

No, this is not outrage at crimes against children, except perhaps, by extension. And remember, the laughable and outrageous part of this is that we do not punish those who actually commit sexual crimes against children this severely!

[Argus]

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?

The man never touched a single child. He was sentenced separately, to 14 years in prison after speaking over the internet with a police officer who pretended to be 13 and arranging to meet.

The porn charges brought a further 14 years in prison.

Meanwhile Outrage over child rapist's sentence

[Guest American Woman]

Well it is not crimes against children which we are speaking about here. No one grows angrier at crimes against the innocent than I do, and no one has as long and consistent a record on this web site for demanding stronger, sterner punishment for those who commit such crimes as I do.

Of course we're talking about crimes against children. That's what child pornography is.

I simply do not see how an otherwise law-abiding person who has never harmed a fly can be thrown into prison for years for viewing pictures he downloaded from the internet. I mean, if he was paying someone, and you could demonstrate that he was thus contributing to the molestation/abuse/exploitation of children then I could see a case being made. But that is rarely the situation.

That "otherwise law-abiding citizen" you speak of is not law-abiding if he's downloading/supporting the child porn industry. If no one downloaded the pictures, if there was no money in it, no demand, there wouldn't be a child porn industry. The "poor sucker" you used as an example did pay for it, even though you claimed otherwise, so I'm going to need you to provide a link stating that "rarely" do people who are convicted for possessing child porn "pay someone" for it.

No, this is not outrage at crimes against children, except perhaps, by extension. And remember, the laughable and outrageous part of this is that we do not punish those who actually commit sexual crimes against children this severely!

Yes, it is crimes against children. How you can say otherwise is beyond me.

And I'm totally questioning your claim that here in the U.S. we don't punish those who actually commit sexual crimes against children as severely, so again, I'm going to need more than your word on it; link/proof, please.

[Argus]

It's very disturbing that you seem determined to dismiss the violent and destructive impact of child porn,

No one has yet posted or even suggested what this "violent and destructive impact" might be. I see no references of note, no academic or psychiatric studies. The only things anyone has posted have been somewhat hysterical reports mainly from advocacy groups, and even those reports turn out to be using misleading or incorrect statistics.

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.

On the contrary. After reading a number of the academic reports - like the ones I posted the other day - I'm comfortable in suggesting I know more about it than anyone else here by quite a margin.

Child pornography is not pictures of teenagers romping on a beach; it is pictures of children, often babies in diapers, being violently molested.

Thanks but I prefer to see actual statistical studies of people who have looked at what's out there and can reliably state what constitutes the vast bulk of it. And according to the laws on child porn it does indeed include teenagers "romping". If you had even read the last story I posted you'd see that teenagers, some as young as 13, are being charged with creating and distributing child pornography for sending pictures of themselves over their cell phones to friends.

Children never consent to sexual violation.

Given every child porn law I have ever seen includes "children" up to the age of 17 yeras 11 months and 29 odd days I can say with a certainty that you're quite wrong.

In terms of punishment, it's a matter of protection of children from the sexual violence that sustains the 'industry'.

Again, if you had read the cites I posted - which you clearly couldn't be bothered to do - you would have learned that there actually IS no industry to speak of.

[Guest American Woman]

The man never touched a single child.

He never touched a single child because the "child" he thought he was meeting was a cop. You think he should be let off even though his "intent" was to meet a 13 year old, not a cop? It's a total blessing that he was denied the chance to "touch a child," and it in no way dismisses/diminishes his intention.

He was sentenced separately, to 14 years in prison after speaking over the internet with a police officer who pretended to be 13 and arranging to meet. The porn charges brought a further 14 years in prison.

Where are you getting the two 14 year sentences from?

[Argus]

As has already been pointed out, you're wrong. You most definitely can get 200 years in prison for molesting real children.

I think we all know that every US city is jammed with violent ex-cons who have served only a few years for every imaginable form of assault, including murder.

I think Argus is trying to paint the United States as "puritanical,"

Oh come on. You know it is. The US has had an adolescent love-hate view of sex and human sexuality for as long as I have been alive. Anything to do with sex draws giggles and condemnation simultaneously. You get all worked up over providing kids with sex education and birth control. And you send guys to prison for hundreds of years for looking at dirty pictures.

Here's the reality about that case, from the link you cited, btw: The state’s brief said that after Mr. Berger turned down a plea bargain, the prosecutor whittled the case to 20 counts out of fear of “deluging the jury” with highly graphic and disturbing images.

Do you _really_ believe that? I mean, think about it for a moment. You really think a prosecutor is going to withhold the most damaging, nastiest of evidence so as to not disturb the jury? Btw, whittled down makes it sound like there were hundreds or perhaps even thousands of images. There were 35 in total. This sounds like dramatization. I'm reminded of the words in one of the academic studies I posted earlier. Police had said that the images were so disturbing that hardened police officers had to be rotated every hour so as to not break down. The authors of the study somewhat wryly commented that they waded through the stuff all day without any emotional problems.

The police had found the images in Mr. Berger’s possession after learning that his credit card number had been used to buy contraband images from a child pornography Web site based in Dallas.

Then he certainly deserved some punishment. But 200 years is very, very far from appropriate or just. Given his lack of criminal record and no evidence of him ever harming a child or anyone else I would have given him a hefty fine and community service on a first offense.

So the "poor sucker" refused a plea bargain

The plea bargain offered was 15 years, which in retrospect sounds like a bargain, but would still be grossly unfair and unjust under the circumstances.

I, too, am all for stamping out child abuse, and I consider child pornography to be a terrible form of abuse.

Oh nonsense. Even at its worst it is merely the documentary evidence of a crime. And from the cites I've posted, most of it does NOT consist of cruel child rape. Most of it is simple photographs which are decades old.

One cannot minimize the effect it has on the children involved

;

Nor demonstrate it, apparently.

Certainly I have been unable to find any evidence that anyone has at any time ever even attempted to show or demonstrate or examine this damage, nor to link it with some anonymous guy ten years and a thousand miles away downloading some images.

[Argus]

He never touched a single child because the "child" he thought he was meeting was a cop. You think he should be let off even though his "intent" was to meet a 13 year old, not a cop?

No, but that was an entirely separate case and he was sentenced separately for it. I also start easing off on my outrage level as the age of the child rises into its teenage years and there is no violence, coercian or force used. Remember that 14 was the age of consent here until recently.

Where are you getting the two 14 year sentences from?

These are separate sentences in separate jurisdictions.

[Argus]

Of course we're talking about crimes against children. That's what child pornography is.

No, it is a witness, evidence, if you will, of a crime.

That "otherwise law-abiding citizen" you speak of is not law-abiding if he's downloading/supporting the child porn industry. If no one downloaded the pictures, if there was no money in it, no demand, there wouldn't be a child porn industry.

If you skim through those cites I posted I think you'll find that there never really was much of a "child porn industry" and what passed for one pretty much disappeared as soon as laws were put in place against child porn. That has not stopped people from claiming child porn is a multi billion dollar industry with hundreds of thousands of web sites, but when you check out such cites you find there's never been any basis to them.

Yes, it is crimes against children. How you can say otherwise is beyond me.

If I beat someone up, that is a crime, if someone films it, that is evidence. Let's put it another way. If police beat someone on the side of the street without cause is that a crime? Sure. Is the guy who videotapes it a criminal for videotaping the crime? No. Is looking at the video a crime? No.

[Guest American Woman]

No, it is a witness, evidence, if you will, of a crime.

No it isn't. Downloading and possessing pictures of child porn is against the law in the United States (and Canada, too, I might add). Therefore it is a crime.

If you skim through those cites I posted I think you'll find that there never really was much of a "child porn industry" and what passed for one pretty much disappeared as soon as laws were put in place against child porn.

If the laws work, it's a good thing they are in place. Quit enforcing the laws and the problem will return.

That has not stopped people from claiming child porn is a multi billion dollar industry with hundreds of thousands of web sites, but when you check out such cites you find there's never been any basis to them.

How do you know if there's any basis to it or not? You think the porn industry is actually going to be upfront and forward about it?

If I beat someone up, that is a crime, if someone films it, that is evidence. Let's put it another way. If police beat someone on the side of the street without cause is that a crime? Sure. Is the guy who videotapes it a criminal for videotaping the crime? No. Is looking at the video a crime? No.

Videotaping the police committing a crime by beating someone up for no reason isn't against the law, nor is viewing such a video. But again, possession of child porn IS against the law, and therefore IS a crime.

[Guest American Woman]

I think we all know that every US city is jammed with violent ex-cons who have served only a few years for every imaginable form of assault, including murder.

No, I don't think "we" do "know" that. Furthermore, at this point we don't know if the cases you cited will end with the convicted "only serving a few years." Seems to me from what you yourself are saying, they will only serve a few years.

Oh come on. You know it is. The US has had an adolescent love-hate view of sex and human sexuality for as long as I have been alive. Anything to do with sex draws giggles and condemnation simultaneously. You get all worked up over providing kids with sex education and birth control. And you send guys to prison for hundreds of years for looking at dirty pictures.

Who's this "you" you speak of? There are plenty of Americans who want sex education taught in the classroom. Be careful not to judge a nation by a vocal minority. As far as "anything to do with sex draw[ing] giggles and condemnation simultaneously," I thought the U.S., via Hollywood, was responsible for low moral standards in the world today. I thought Hollywood, Vegas, etc., and the way so many stars dress, was proof of our moral depravity.

Do you _really_ believe that? I mean, think about it for a moment. You really think a prosecutor is going to withhold the most damaging, nastiest of evidence so as to not disturb the jury? Btw, whittled down makes it sound like there were hundreds or perhaps even thousands of images. There were 35 in total. This sounds like dramatization. I'm reminded of the words in one of the academic studies I posted earlier. Police had said that the images were so disturbing that hardened police officers had to be rotated every hour so as to not break down. The authors of the study somewhat wryly commented that they waded through the stuff all day without any emotional problems.

I don't know where you got your figures, but 20, rather than 35, certainly is "whittled down." If you were shorted at work on your pay by the same percentage, by 42.9%, I imagine you would see your salary as whittled down.

Whether or not the most disturbing evidence was withheld or not is really irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. He was in possession of child porn, and that's against the law. Child porn, which contrary to what you had said, he did pay for.

Then he certainly deserved some punishment. But 200 years is very, very far from appropriate or just. Given his lack of criminal record and no evidence of him ever harming a child or anyone else I would have given him a hefty fine and community service on a first offense.

It's not up to you. You may think it's only worthy of community service and a fine, but U.S. laws say differently. So, by the way, do Canada's. But as I already pointed out, Arizona has a different way of carrying out sentences, and that's not the "United States," but Arizona law. I do find it excessive myself, but again, it's not up to me. There's a saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." He made the decision to break the law of his own free will. And it involves children. That's where he loses my sympathy.

The plea bargain offered was 15 years, which in retrospect sounds like a bargain, but would still be grossly unfair and unjust under the circumstances.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But since you seem to think criminals in the U.S. are out on the streets after serving only a fraction of their time, it really wouldn't have been so bad; especially in comparison to a childhood lost.

Certainly I have been unable to find any evidence that anyone has at any time ever even attempted to show or demonstrate or examine this damage, nor to link it with some anonymous guy ten years and a thousand miles away downloading some images.

People here have posted about the damage children suffer, but I find it odd that you would even need proof since it seems to me common sense alone would tell you that.

Edited August 16, 2009 by American Woman

[CANADIEN]

No one has yet posted or even suggested what this "violent and destructive impact" might be. I see no references of note, no academic or psychiatric studies. The only things anyone has posted have been somewhat hysterical reports mainly from advocacy groups, and even those reports turn out to be using misleading or incorrect statistics.

What next? You need proof that 2 + 2 = 4 as well?

Thanks but I prefer to see actual statistical studies of people who have looked at what's out there and can reliably state what constitutes the vast bulk of it. And according to the laws on child porn it does indeed include teenagers "romping". If you had even read the last story I posted you'd see that teenagers, some as young as 13, are being charged with creating and distributing child pornography for sending pictures of themselves over their cell phones to friends.

Whether or not criminal charges are warranted when aa teenager is stupid enough to send nude pictures of herslef to her boyfriend is besides the point. We are talking about the sexual explotation of children through child pornography.

[CANADIEN]

No, it is a witness, evidence, if you will, of a crime.

It is not.

[kimmy]

I think Argus is trying to paint the United States as "puritanical," and as has happened in other threads he's started, he's misstating his information. I already clarified the case regarding the teacher from Canada sentenced in Virginia in my post here.

I don't agree with Argus that Canada (or Australia) are much different from the United States, as demonstrated by some of the reactions in this thread and by the Australian "Simpsons" case.

Now I'll clarify another. Here's what Argus has to say: 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.

Here's the reality about that case, from the link you cited, btw: The state’s brief said that after Mr. Berger turned down a plea bargain, the prosecutor whittled the case to 20 counts out of fear of “deluging the jury” with highly graphic and disturbing images. The police had found the images in Mr. Berger’s possession after learning that his credit card number had been used to buy contraband images from a child pornography Web site based in Dallas.

So the "poor sucker" refused a plea bargain and the case was "whittled down" to 20 counts for fear of disturbing the jury with "disturbing images." And note that the police only found the images after learning that his credit card had been used to buy the images. In other words, the "poor sucker" evidently had paid for them.

In Arizona, had he had sex with a real, actual 12 year old he'd have received a 20 year sentence.

In Arizona, a first-time rapist gets a maximum sentence of 14 years, a 2nd conviction, a maximum of 21 years, and a third conviction, a maximum of 28 years.

In Arizona, murder is 25 years to life, with a possibility of execution for aggravated circumstances.

They locked him up for his entire life? They offered to "let him off easy" with a 15 year sentence?

Does that seem right when having sex with an actual 12 year old victim would have gotten him 20? When the *maximum* punishment for a rape would have been 14 years? When a serial rapist will be out in 28 years or less? When a murderer might be out in 25?

Does having a stash of kiddie porn really rate in the same league as that stuff?

-k

[CANADIEN]

I don't agree with Argus that Canada (or Australia) are much different from the United States, as demonstrated by some of the reactions in this thread and by the Australian "Simpsons" case.

In Arizona, had he had sex with a real, actual 12 year old he'd have received a 20 year sentence.

In Arizona, a first-time rapist gets a maximum sentence of 14 years, a 2nd conviction, a maximum of 21 years, and a third conviction, a maximum of 28 years.

In Arizona, murder is 25 years to life, with a possibility of execution for aggravated circumstances.

They locked him up for his entire life? They offered to "let him off easy" with a 15 year sentence?

Does that seem right when having sex with an actual 12 year old victim would have gotten him 20? When the *maximum* punishment for a rape would have been 14 years? When a serial rapist will be out in 28 years or less? When a murderer might be out in 25?

Does having a stash of kiddie porn really rate in the same league as that stuff?

-k

Multiple crimes, multiple counts. Sounds simple to me.

[kimmy]

Multiple crimes, multiple counts. Sounds simple to me.

Yes, I realize how they added it up to 200 years. 10 years per picture, and keep adding until he's guaranteed to never get out. Clear as day.

The question I asked was, does that sentence seem appropriate in comparison to the other sentences I described?

If somebody has 1 child porn image on his computer, he's apparently committed a crime comparable to rapist (presumptive sentence, 7 years, as outlined above.)

If somebody had a 2 porn images, he's apparently twice as bad as somebody who just has 1 child porn image, and he's committed a crime comparable to statutory rape of a 12 year old, or someone on a 2nd rape conviction.

If somebody else has 3 child porn images, he's apparently three times as bad as the first guy. He's become worse than a murderer or a serial rapist.

If somebody has 10 child porn images, he's 10 times worse than the guy who just has one child porn image. He is now comparable to someone who rapes an infant, or a remorseless killer.

Does this kind of math really make sense?

-k

[eyeball]

Does this kind of math really make sense?

-k

It does seem a little exponentially over the top. I'm sure it happens all the time.

Speaking of over the top, I know a young lady, a friend of my daughter's, who went through what must be a true nightmare. She posted pictures of herself and members of a wrestling team she'd been involved with for years on the Internet. She'd been a member of the team for years and had now volunteered to chaperone them on a out-of-town trip. These were pictures of them horsing aroung in their underwear in their hotel room and were similar to many pictures taken by many kids over the years. The difference now is that she is an adult albeit a few mere months older than the girls and she posted these pictures on her Facebook page. Some parent complained which resulted in the seizure of this young lady's computer. As it turns out she also a nude picture she had taken of herself stored on the computer. The authorities seemingly came unglued at this point.

She was subsequently arrested, strip-searched and held in jail for several hours as this was investigated. This apparently involved the arresting officers printing copies of the picture and questioning her relentlessly about it including who she might have sold or distributed the picture too She was eventually charged with interfering with a minor but the charges were dropped a day or so before a judge looked at the case, perhaps due to the number of people like myself who spoke out about this case. I think the judge would have been as outraged as anyone who knows this "adult" and the way she was handled. Despite all charges being dropped she is now banned from having any contact with the kids or the wrestling team. She feels violated, depressed and above all abandoned by the coaches and teachers associated with the team that have clearly felt an official chill of some sort.

I guess my point is that it seems too easy for society to nail people to this particular cross without thinking more clearly or objectively about it. I think it really behooves the justice system and especially police to be careful how they treat these situations.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The question I asked was, does that sentence seem appropriate in comparison to the other sentences I described?

Yes....by design, the "justice system" struggles with how to incarcerate such pervs forever and still remain constitutional. Sex offenders and child pornographers get sentenced with this in mind.

Would you welcome a halfway house or group home for paroled offenders in your neighborhood ??

[Argus]

Yes....by design, the "justice system" struggles with how to incarcerate such pervs forever and still remain constitutional.

I think you and AM and Cd all demonstrate exactly what I was talking about when I said the sentences are based on moral prudery not any sense of justice. Because reading your posts it is impossible to not read very clearly what your attitude is, and it tends to reflect the mentality behind such sentencing.

They lust after children, therefore, no sentence is too terrible. Lock each and every one of them in prison for the rest of their lives, even if the only have one picture, even if they don't have pictures, for that matter. You find them disgusting and contemptible, as does society and so neither you nor society care about ludicrously harsh sentencing. In reality, these people are being locked into prison for lengthy sentences not as a reflection of the harm they have done but because society finds them to be morally contemptible due to their sexual interest in children.

And the problems I have with this is first it's an extremely dangerous precedent, second, their sexual interest in children is, for the most part, a psychological disorder over which they have no control. And perhaps as importantly, third, the fact such laws include teenagers mean that almost any man can be netted by his own instinctive interest in breeding-age females (yes, yes, I know that's something of an odd term but it's reality). Remember that the law usually does not care if you claim you thought the picture/video was of an eighteen or nineteen year old. Are there people rotting in prison today because they have videos of Tracy Lords? I wouldn't doubt it given the hysteria over child porn.

[Shady]

Oh come on. You know it is. The US has had an adolescent love-hate view of sex and human sexuality for as long as I have been alive.

I think that's an outdated stereotype. Perhaps in the 1950's that was true.

[Argus]

No it isn't. Downloading and possessing pictures of child porn is against the law in the United States (and Canada, too, I might add). Therefore it is a crime.

I didn't say downloading CP wasn't a crime. I said that child pornography was not a crime against children. It's a narrow difference but an important one, I think.

If the laws work, it's a good thing they are in place. Quit enforcing the laws and the problem will return.

The law worked from the very beginning. But advocacy groups and greasy politicians have continued to seize on the issue to strengthen and broaden such laws in the intervening decades, mostly out of self-interest. Hell, it's a motherhood issue, and no one dares oppose it anyway other than a few civil liberties types. It's easy for politicians to make hay of it, and other groups full of busybodies to make wild claims so they can feel important. As to the police, of course it's an easy winner there, too, which is why you always see their press officers eager to make news of every arrest, to strengthen their claims for more funds and frighten taxpayers.

How do you know if there's any basis to it or not? You think the porn industry is actually going to be upfront and forward about it?

Again, clearly you didn't bother to read any of the cites I posted.

Videotaping the police committing a crime by beating someone up for no reason isn't against the law, nor is viewing such a video. But again, possession of child porn IS against the law, and therefore IS a crime.

I think you're missing the point, perhaps deliberately. I'm not questioning that there is a law on the book against downloading/possessing, or even, for all I know, imagining a naked child. What I'm questioning is whether child porn is a dreadful and harmful crime against children. You know, the only people who were somewhat unbiased who actually considered that question (Nixon's presidential commission on pornography) postulated that child pornography could actually be a help in that it might act as a sort of relief valve for pedophiles and thus prevent real abuse.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think you and AM and Cd all demonstrate exactly what I was talking about when I said the sentences are based on moral prudery not any sense of justice. Because reading your posts it is impossible to not read very clearly what your attitude is, and it tends to reflect the mentality behind such sentencing.

Fine by me.....we know what your "mentality" is as well for other interesting topics.

They lust after children, therefore, no sentence is too terrible. Lock each and every one of them in prison for the rest of their lives, even if the only have one picture, even if they don't have pictures, for that matter. You find them disgusting and contemptible, as does society and so neither you nor society care about ludicrously harsh sentencing. In reality, these people are being locked into prison for lengthy sentences not as a reflection of the harm they have done but because society finds them to be morally contemptible due to their sexual interest in children.

Not really...it a simple matter of public safety. I have just as much "contempt" for drunk drivers who kill and injure people, but they are only now beginning to receive any jail time at all.

And the problems I have with this is first it's an extremely dangerous precedent, second, their sexual interest in children is, for the most part, a psychological disorder over which they have no control. And perhaps as importantly, third, the fact such laws include teenagers mean that almost any man can be netted by his own instinctive interest in breeding-age females (yes, yes, I know that's something of an odd term but it's reality). Remember that the law usually does not care if you claim you thought the picture/video was of an eighteen or nineteen year old. Are there people rotting in prison today because they have videos of Tracy Lords? I wouldn't doubt it given the hysteria over child porn.

You're in Canada....think as you wish....it is not relevant to laws in the "states". Porn traffickers of all types know the score, and if they don't, too bad. Play with fire...get burned.

[Argus]

I think that's an outdated stereotype. Perhaps in the 1950's that was true.

If you go to Europe - to Israel, to south America and Australia, you routinely find topless and nude beaches. They're quite blasé about such things. In most of the United States, and to a somewhat lesser extent Canada (we tend to take after them) the idea of nude beaches instantly draws a connection to nefarious sexual conduct. A young woman who admits to sunbathing nude in public over here will draw suspicions about her morality from huge segments of the population. American television still to this day will have giggly episodes of this or that show where one character or another has to, for some reason, go to a nudist resort.

And while I don't watch television these days, I recall while growing up (not in the 50s so don't suggest it) that almost every family show, sitcom or drama, would ultimately wind up with at least one "virgin" episode. This was where the resident teenager of the show would agonize about whether she ought to lose her virginity, the entire cast would inevitably find out and try desperately to convince her to remain chaste, and, finally, at the end, the crisis, and it was portrayed as such, would be solved by her decision to "wait until I'm older". This was American media at its finest, moralizing over it while at the same time exploiting the idea of teenage girls and sexuality.

I don't think they are having a major fit in Europe about teenagers flashing each other over the internet or via cell phones, and I doubt they're arresting 13 year olds for having naked pictures of themselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I don't think they are having a major fit in Europe about teenagers flashing each other over the internet or via cell phones, and I doubt they're arresting 13 year olds for having naked pictures of themselves.

What a crock...why don't you and your 13 year old daughter run some tests in Canada and see how far you can go prove that the Americans or Mexicans are "puritanical. Then try it in Japan or some other nations. I promise to send you a card in jail.

Porn is mainstream and legal in the USA...Canada is a backwater in this regard.....but not kiddie porn, or anything that approaches it.

Edited August 16, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Not really...it a simple matter of public safety. I have just as much "contempt" for drunk drivers who kill and injure people, but they are only now beginning to receive any jail time at all.

Given no one has managed to demonstrate how some guy downloading a twenty year old picture in his basement endangers public safety I have to call this one a lie.

You're in Canada....think as you wish....it is not relevant to laws in the "states".

Given you seem to spend much of your waking life on a Canadian web site discussing largely Canadian political and social issues I think I'll just have to laugh this one off.

Porn traffickers of all types know the score, and if they don't, too bad. Play with fire...get burned.

There's that old Republican moral purity attitude.