The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-22-2003, 08:07 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
200 years for looking at kiddie porn?

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...519sexlaw.html

Yes, kiddie porn is bad, but 200 years in jail for looking at it just doesn't seem right. 200 years for being the guy who rapes or molests a child, sure. I cannot imagine any picture that, by merely looking at it and possessing it, is worthy of spending the rest of your life in jail. If there were a market for pictures of chopped-up children (kiddie-snuff) even that would not be worth such a sentence.

I understand the "get rid of the market and you'll save the children" rationale, but the bottom line is here in America you can go to jail for 200 years for looking at a picture.

Of course, the reason this exists is because every politician wants to one-up all the other politicians on being "toughest" on kiddie porn. After all, the fact that kiddie porn is bad is probably the only issue nearly all americans (including myself) agree on. So it's safe political chest-thumping... won't alienate any voting faction that could cost votes in the next election.

Anyway, can a 200 year sentence for looking at/having a picture be justified? I'm of the opinion that this is extremely excessive, with serious 8th Amend. issues. 200 year sentences should be reserved for people who actually hurt someone directly (i.e. no attenuated market theory connection to the harm).
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-22-2003, 08:11 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
I'd have to agree with that. Unless he was involved in the actual production of those images, the sentence is excessive.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-22-2003, 08:34 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
It's funny, I was just watching Bill O'Reilly do a segment about this story at the end of which he expressed support for the sentence.

The funny part is that just a couple of segments earlier he claimed to have seen the infamous R. Kelly video, which allegedly shows Kelly having sex with a minor. O'Reilly seemed quite proud that he had seen it.

So why is ok, for HIM to watch kiddie porn, but anyone else should get life in prison?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-22-2003, 08:45 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Ok I admit I came across this story while I was flipping through and caught that part of O'Reilly. Didn't see the R. Kelly segment, but yeah, that's a darn good point. I'm sure Bill thinks either 1) there's a journalist privilege to look at things like this; or 2) he didn't look at it to jerk off (hopefully) so it's okay.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-22-2003, 08:46 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
So why is ok, for HIM to watch kiddie porn, but anyone else should get life in prison?
Do as I say, not as I do!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-22-2003, 08:53 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
I understand the "get rid of the market and you'll save the children" rationale, but the bottom line is here in America you can go to jail for 200 years for looking at a picture.
I question the rational of the harshness of the Arizona law. Even the argument that it furthers the "market for child porn" doesn't always hold water.

What if a man downloads child porn for free over the internet? Sure it's wrong, but does that actual act of downloading it and possessing it on his computer be the same as physically molesting a child?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-22-2003, 09:08 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,801
It is easy for legislators to pass tough sentencing laws like that, when they know the law will be overturned on appeal. The lawmakers get to look tough, and those convicted never do the time. The public never holds politicians responsible for backing laws that are sure to be overturned.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-22-2003, 09:41 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Yeah, if a legislator sponsors a bill and it gets overturned, he/she should be personally liable for the attorneys' fees of the person who had to get it overturned.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-22-2003, 10:55 PM
ChaosGod ChaosGod is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Same narrow minds that imprison drug users instead of dealers.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-23-2003, 01:20 AM
rjung rjung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Blalron
Do as I say, not as I do!
Oh, like that's a stretch for O'Reilly...
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-23-2003, 05:01 AM
ticker ticker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Selling, downloading, trading or buying child pornography is considered as serious a crime in Arizona as molesting a child: 10 to 24 years for each count.
IMO the only positive aspect of kiddie porn is that a paedophile may be able to release their desires without abusing more children. With this policy some may be encouraged to commit more heinous - and in their perverted way, more satisfying - acts as the likely punishment is the same.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-23-2003, 05:07 AM
Dunderman Dunderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Blalron
I'd have to agree with that. Unless he was involved in the actual production of those images, the sentence is excessive.
If he paid for them, I'd say he's just as guilty as the producers. Even if he just downloaded them for free, he added to the perceived demand for child porn, which is all that matters.
Quote:
Originally posted by ticker
IMO the only positive aspect of kiddie porn is that a paedophile may be able to release their desires without abusing more children.
As far as I know child pornography has generally been found to inflame desires rather than release them. No cites, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-23-2003, 05:45 AM
Steve Wright Steve Wright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Does it strike nobody that the sentence is excessive because he won't, physically, be able to serve it? I mean, 200 years? Even if he's eligible for parole after serving a third of it (or whatever the fraction is), it still means he's going to die in prison ... is there some rationale for not saying "life sentence, no remission, no parole"?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-23-2003, 07:10 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
He was caught while trying to pay for child pornography with his credit card.

He had downloaded and saved "thousands" of images of children being sexually abused.

He was a friggin' SCHOOLTEACHER.

His wife is annoyingly clueless (O.K., while not an aggravating factor, I just had to say it.)

I have no sympathy for a man who helps create a market for the sexual abuse for children. He wasn't just "looking" he had spent a considerable amount of time searching, and purchasing, and thereby contributing to the abuse of children.

All that being said, I think the sentence was excessive.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-23-2003, 07:17 AM
Tarantula Tarantula is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dublin - Ireland
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Wright
... is there some rationale for not saying "life sentence, no remission, no parole"?
Would it make any difference ? I think the only ethical issue is forcing the tax-payers to pay for this sickos board & keep. Just fry the fucker.

...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-23-2003, 07:52 AM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Priceguy
If he paid for them, I'd say he's just as guilty as the producers. Even if he just downloaded them for free, he added to the perceived demand for child porn, which is all that matters.

As far as I know child pornography has generally been found to inflame desires rather than release them. No cites, sorry.
Assuming that's true, if i were a pedophile and the punishments were the same for both molesting a child and for buying kiddie porn, i'd probably just go molest some children. I'd imagine it would be more satisfying, ya know...

Like looking at a playboy vs. going to a strip club I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:04 AM
Dunderman Dunderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalt
Assuming that's true, if i were a pedophile and the punishments were the same for both molesting a child and for buying kiddie porn, i'd probably just go molest some children. I'd imagine it would be more satisfying, ya know...
For starters, criminals generally don't consider the punishment when they contemplate their crime. If they expect to be caught, they don't do it. I provided a few cites for this in this thread.

Then, I'd like to mention that the risks of capture are likely to be much greater for child molestation than buying child pornography. Also, I imagine the mental threshold for child molestation is much higher than for buying child pornography; the barrier is much greater.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:24 AM
coax coax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
This is like so many other crime 'scenes' that are never gonna go away no matter what you do.
Which is why I think they should have some sort of 'danger' meter, to measure how likely the person who's charged with child porn possession is of molesting a child.

To me, it's utterly disgusting to go and search for pictures of that nature, and I can't believe you're "defending" him.
Now you may say that I'm letting my emotions run in the way, but in some ways I feel like you're saying, "it's ok to look at pictures as long as you don't hurt a child"
Rape, child molesting and all that, is worse than murder, in my mind, because when you murder someone, it's over pretty quickly, while these children have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Now, of course the molestors are far 'worse' than the people looking at the pictures/videos, but I still feel like the people looking should still get a hefty punishment.
If a guy has like 20 pictures on his computer, he should get a psychoanalysis, and if he has some excuse the psychologist buys, maybe he can get 10 years in jail, and the police will monitor his online activites, or maybe he can be banned from using a computer for like a year or two.
That way, if he's not really THAT interrested in child porn, he may choose to abandon it and hence he can live a life again.
While real pedophiles will undoubtly go back to their old life asap.
Anyway it's all very complicated at this point, I just aired some points I had.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:25 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 25,776
Possibly true, Kalt, although I hope it is harder to molest a child than to click a mouse.

I think the sentence is based on the assumption that there is no moral difference between raping a child, and (essentially) paying to have someone else do it so you can watch.

Some crimes are serious enough to warrant life in prison (which is what a 200 year sentence implies). Being complicit in several thousand acts of child molestation seems to me to be one of those crimes. It is therefore hard for me to work up any sympathy for this repulsive pervert.

Let him die in prison. That's what it's for.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-23-2003, 09:14 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,393
Part of the mechanism behind such sentencing guidelines is that prosecutors can make the choice whether to prosecute the individual for every last KP picture he owns, and sock him away for about as long as you would spent plutonium, or just for the first one and give him 10-to-20. Courts may throw out individual counts. and defendants may cop a plea for a lesser charge and serve as little as six -- all these examples are present in the article linked in the OP. So what we have here is a "doomsday weapon" type of charge, that MAY be used when you really want/need to get someone (but which apparently once invoked leaves either side hardly any wiggle room ).

However, you do have to be careful when legislating and when applying the law, that in your effort to give real "teeth" to the statute, you don't place yourself in a position where there is inconsistency in its enforcement and it winds up all over the chart, or it becomes effectively unenforceable. Another risk is that ocassionally a DA or court will feel obligated to hit someone full force for no better reason than to prove they can, or because there's no incentive to plea-bargain -- i.e. he can provide no names or web addresses for further stings -- or because judicial election season is upon us.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-23-2003, 02:38 PM
ChaosGod ChaosGod is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
there are many gray areas here which must be defined.

Is it the fact that he paid for these pictures that constitutes the crime?
What if he hadn't paid for them?
What is child pornography?
Are pictures of naked children in a nudist beach considered pornography?
What about peer to peer filesharing software?
These programs interchange files in such volumes that it's impossible for the user to keep track of what's in his hardrive
What about copyrighted MP3 files ?
Should a person do time for having these on his hardrive?
My opinion is that this man should be punished only if it was clear that he actively serached for, EXPLICITLY, minor pornography AND paid for it. Child pornography defined as minors performing sexual activities.

It should NOT be a crime to simply LOOK at a picture.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-23-2003, 03:39 PM
coax coax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
i dont think thousands of pictures got on his harddrive by accident.
so this case is obvious, but with other cases you have a point, chaos.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-23-2003, 04:33 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
If he paid for them, I'd say he's just as guilty as the producers. Even if he just downloaded them for free, he added to the perceived demand for child porn, which is all that matters.
How much does the perceived demand for child porn matter in regards to how much child pornography is produced? Do you think child pornographers are doing this to win popularity points?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-23-2003, 05:32 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Shodan
Some crimes are serious enough to warrant life in prison (which is what a 200 year sentence implies). Being complicit in several thousand acts of child molestation seems to me to be one of those crimes. It is therefore hard for me to work up any sympathy for this repulsive pervert.
See, you presume he is complicit in those acts. To say that is to accept the "market demand" theory of liability in the broadest possible way. To say looking at it or having it on your hard drive is equal to holding the kid down while someone else does the molestation/rape just strains credulity. Even to say paying for it is so equivalent just doesn't seem realistic.

Would you agree that someone caught with possession of a joint should be less guilty than someone caught growing 500 acres of marijuana and selling it on the open (black) market? What about someone caught selling one joint? Same level of guilt as the guy selling 500 acres?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-23-2003, 06:33 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Re: 200 years for looking at kiddie porn?

Don't worry, he'll only serve half of that.


Just kidding. The sentence is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:18 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalt
See, you presume he is complicit in those acts. To say that is to accept the "market demand" theory of liability in the broadest possible way. To say looking at it or having it on your hard drive is equal to holding the kid down while someone else does the molestation/rape just strains credulity. Even to say paying for it is so equivalent just doesn't seem realistic.

Would you agree that someone caught with possession of a joint should be less guilty than someone caught growing 500 acres of marijuana and selling it on the open (black) market? What about someone caught selling one joint? Same level of guilt as the guy selling 500 acres?
I concur. It's an unbelievably broad application of punishing complicity. It's like punishing a person who has one joint the same as the drug kingpins who actually grew thousands of plants and ran a huge drug operation.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:25 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
The issue boils down to whether it's justified to put someone in prison for the rest of their lives over a few mouse clicks.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:27 PM
Palo Verde Palo Verde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
This guy had thousands of pictures!

Think of all the children irreperably harmed to feed his disgusitng lust.

This wasn't some guy who accidently came across a picture on a web site. He was actively looking for, and paying for, pictures of children having sex!

I'm so revolted I can't stand it.

I have NO sympathy for this scum.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:31 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by autz
This guy had thousands of pictures!

Think of all the children irreperably harmed to feed his disgusitng lust.

This wasn't some guy who accidently came across a picture on a web site. He was actively looking for, and paying for, pictures of children having sex!

I'm so revolted I can't stand it.

I have NO sympathy for this scum.
My beef isn't so much with the fate of this particular offender but with the Arizona Law itself. There are many less culpable people who could get caught up in this.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:44 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by autz
This guy had thousands of pictures!

Think of all the children irreperably harmed to feed his disgusitng lust.

This wasn't some guy who accidently came across a picture on a web site. He was actively looking for, and paying for, pictures of children having sex!

I'm so revolted I can't stand it.

I have NO sympathy for this scum.
Well first of all even if he hadn't paid for it it would be the same crime. Just "looking" is illegal.

Secondly, you don't know "all" the children are irreperably harmed by being molested. I bet some 17.9 year olds would just love it. They can verbally and physically consent, but not legally consent, thus it is child porn.

Now, even a 4 year old, while quite disgusting, isn't per se irreperably harmed (assuming no physical damage, of course) just by being molested. I think we believe the "my parents were bad to me which is why i did [bad thing]" line a little too strongly. Everything bad later on in one's life is caused by something bad that happened to you as a child. Not saying there is never any causation, but to presume it 100% of the time is simply wrong. I'm quite sure there are plenty of perfectly normal, healthy people out there who were molested as children. You just don't hear about them.... because they're normal and healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-23-2003, 08:51 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Secondly, you don't know "all" the children are irreperably harmed by being molested. I bet some 17.9 year olds would just love it. They can verbally and physically consent, but not legally consent, thus it is child porn.
That's another thing about harsh inflexible laws such as these: They allow the judge very little discretion for individual circumstances.

Theoretically, an 18 year old who snapped a few photos of his 17 year old girlfriend (heck, even his lawfully wedded wife) could spend the rest of his life in prison. The judge would be compelled to sentence him to a minimum of 10 years for each photograph.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-23-2003, 09:06 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Blalron
The issue boils down to whether it's justified to put someone in prison for the rest of their lives over a few mouse clicks.
Quote:
Originally posted by autz
This guy had thousands of pictures!
So, he gets put in prison for the rest of his life for thousands of mouse clicks. So how many mouse clicks is the magic number, anyway?

I've had kiddie porn e-mailed to me, and I hate the idea that opening an attachment and looking at it (if only for a few seconds before I deleted it) would be enough to put me in prison for a decade or more, yet there's no real catch point in the Arizona law (or at least none indicated in the article) that would distinguish my "downloading" of child porn from Berger's "downloading" of child porn. Such a badly-written law means that if you use the internet (and thus probably have come across child porn at some point, if only in a pop-up ad), the police can get you if they are sufficiently determined. At the very least, I can imagine a scenario where my computer is seized and pored over by experts who find traces of deleted files, and that might be enough (in a sufficient paranoid atmosphere) to get me accused or indicted. Even if eventually acquitted, I'd have to spend serious cash in legal fees to defend myself against the charges of being the equivalent of a child molestor. Certainly my reputation would be tainted.

I find the potential abuses of a law like this far more disturbing than any number of internet pervs.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-23-2003, 09:07 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
if it were his wife, she'd be emancipated and thus not a minor, so it wouldn't be kiddie porn as to him. If some guy broke into his house and stole the picture and sold it on the internet, it would be kiddie porn to him and his customers... I guess.

I would get a kick out of trying the "yeah she's 15 but she's married thus emancipated thus not a minor thus it's not kiddie porn" defense, just to see what happens.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-23-2003, 09:11 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Now, even a 4 year old, while quite disgusting, isn't per se irreperably harmed (assuming no physical damage, of course) just by being molested.
Yes she is. Sexual abuse at an early age causes permanent problems for the rest of the victim's life.

I think the law, as written, may be over the top but I have no sympathy whatever for a child molester or for anyone who pays to watch the rape of a child. I favor life in prison for child molesters. I favor prison for those who consume child pornography. The problem is that child pornography can be hard to define. We have to admit there's a difference between simple nudity and actual sexual acts. We also have to recognize that there's a difference between a toddler and a teenager. I would favor harsher sentences for pornography involving pre-adolescents, but I don't want to legitimize "teeny" porn either. In the case of the OP, I'd probably recommend about twenty years in stir along with some serious therapy. Upon release from prison I favor chemical castration. I've seen chemical castration up close. It works. It makes them grow tits and they don't have to shave any more but who gives a shit, really?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-23-2003, 09:13 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Oh... no the # of mouse clicks is not the issue. I can launch (in theory) a nuke with a single mouse click. May take me a few mouse clicks to upload top secret gov't files the net. Hacking into someone's network and clicking their "delete all" button doesn't take too many mouse clicks. You get the point. It's not how easy and trivial it is, it's how much harm the act causes. Looking at a picture causes no harm. Zero. Buying a picture of kiddie porn causes de minimus harm vis a vis the "market demand theory."
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-23-2003, 09:21 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Yes she is. Sexual abuse at an early age causes permanent problems for the rest of the victim's life.
No, sexual abuse at an early age can cause permanent problems for the rest of the victim's life. It increases the risk and probability of problems later on in life, many of which can be permanent, others which can be helped with proper therapy.

Smoking doesn't cause cancer, it increases the probability that you'll get cancer. If it caused cancer, every single person who took a puff off a cigarette would get cancer. I'm by no means defending molesting a child, but i refuse to believe that every single one (100%) will have problems later in life caused by the molestation. Likewise I refuse to believe that 100% of those cases cannot be helped with proper therapy (psychiatry, psychology, medicine, etc).
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-23-2003, 09:29 PM
Qadgop the Mercotan Qadgop the Mercotan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 22,325
Quote:
Originally posted by Shodan
Let him die in prison. That's what it's for.
Just recognize that it will cost just under $1 million to house and care for the average adult inmate until death.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-23-2003, 09:35 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,393
As someone who, like Bryan and at least one other Doper I know of, has been actually mailed CP in spam, I would hope that the lawmakers provided a way to distinguish me from the guy who deliberately seeks out thousands of actual child pr0rn pics. Or the person who downloads a Traci Lords porn clip from 1984, whence she was 16 but no sensible human should argue she was a "child". "Zero Tolerance" laws are most often a bad idea.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-23-2003, 10:01 PM
robertliguori robertliguori is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
I would hope that the lawmakers provided a way to distinguish me from the guy who deliberately seeks out thousands of actual child pr0rn pics.
Okay. Which way? At what point does the cache directory of spammed illegal images become distinct from the cleverly hidden CP archive?

Then again, I have a large problem with laws such as these in the first place. The way I see it, if the government really wanted to eliminate demand for child pornography, they'd make it legal to trade, but not to sell, and set up some sort of network designed to send child porn to whoever (ick) wanted it. In this way demand for new child porn would go way down.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-23-2003, 10:21 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by robertliguori
Okay. Which way? At what point does the cache directory of spammed illegal images become distinct from the cleverly hidden CP archive?

Then again, I have a large problem with laws such as these in the first place. The way I see it, if the government really wanted to eliminate demand for child pornography, they'd make it legal to trade, but not to sell, and set up some sort of network designed to send child porn to whoever (ick) wanted it. In this way demand for new child porn would go way down.
Well, you'd also have to put in a cut off date (any child porn made after the bill was enacted is henceforth and forever illegal) to discourage any new child pornography from being made. Sounds crazy enough that it just might work.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-23-2003, 10:38 PM
sj2 sj2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Well, I think the sentence is fine. Lock them away. Forever. Frankly, I'd rather have them killed. If you view it, you are a criminal. If it is an accident, you would be horrified and not have 1000 images on your hard drive. These people are predators. They want to have sex with children. I don't buy the "Well, we'll give them the porn and they will 'take care of themselves' attitiude". The potential for destroying a child's life is far too grave. These animals are never "cured" or rehabilitated. That being said...

I would hesitate to enact any minimum sentence regulations. The potential for using this law outside of the bounds it was intended is far too risky. Think of the baby bath pictures, snap one, off you go...
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-23-2003, 10:43 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
The theory behind prosecution of people who view kiddie porn is that the production of kiddie porn is de facto rape, since kids can't give informed consent. Possessing kiddie porn is like owning porn of women actually being raped, not pretending to be raped. It's creating a market for rape, period.

Imagine if there was a market for videos of women in prison having sex with guards.

I don't know the particulars of this law, but if it doesn't have any flex that allows for cases where possession of kiddie porn is accidental in nature or otherwise clearly not a product of sexual intent, then it's not a very good law at all.

I think the most productive approach to the problem of pedophilia would be a serious, well-funded long-term project studying the psychological underpinning of it with an eye toward preventing the development of pedophilic behaviors in the first place and of treating them if they occur in the second.

But everybody's so caught up in the 'it's so awful we must do any horrible thing we can think of to prevent it!' hysteria that this approach doesn't even get considered most of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-23-2003, 10:44 PM
Banger Banger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
200 years in prison, a decade for each picture, the minimum penalty allowed by state law.
He got a decade for each picture? If NY law followed AZ law, then this guy, a law professor no less, would be looking at 1 million years behind bars. I'm not familiar with the applicable law in New York, but I'm sure he is. From the cited article it looks like he'll get four years maximum.

The scary thing (well, one of the scary things, at least) is that I took this guy's copyright law class and even interviewed for an internship with him! As luck would have it, I got a different internship that I parlayed into a post-law school job. Just imagine having a resume featuring an internship with this guy!

Don't think too poorly of my alma mater (which also had Judge Judy as a graduate ), as it was also the law school of Supreme Court Justice John Harlan and has the president of the ACLU as a professor.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-23-2003, 10:57 PM
Kalt Kalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Evil Captor
[B]The theory behind prosecution of people who view kiddie porn is that the production of kiddie porn is de facto rape, since kids can't give informed consent. Possessing kiddie porn is like owning porn of women actually being raped, not pretending to be raped. It's creating a market for rape, period.
We've discussed the "market demand theory" quite a bit in this thread.

If a crime needs a "theory" behind it to show harm, then it's quite tenuous and shouldn't be punishable by anything more than a fine. Actually molesting a child needs no theory to connect the action to a damage.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-23-2003, 11:15 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
These people are predators. They want to have sex with children. I don't buy the "Well, we'll give them the porn and they will 'take care of themselves' attitiude". The potential for destroying a child's life is far too grave. These animals are never "cured" or rehabilitated. That being said...
I don't think wanting to do something should be punished the same as actually doing something.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-23-2003, 11:22 PM
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Evil Captor-"Imagine if there was a market for videos of women in prison having sex with guards."

I sold out in 3hrs.


jk

I can't believe all these calls for death for viewing some pictures. Not all these people are child rapers in waiting, the world is not so black and white.

The market theory of culpability is flawed anyway if you ask me. Do you really think that these guys are raping children for the money and fame? These people would be doing it anyway, IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-23-2003, 11:25 PM
sj2 sj2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Blalron
I don't think wanting to do something should be punished the same as actually doing something.
But, they ARE actually doing something. They are looking at illegal material...which should be punished. Whether or not they offend in person, they are supporting an industry of criminals molesting children.

Someone caught with drugs for their own use is prosecuted for their own offense, they don't just go after the maker/dealer.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-23-2003, 11:30 PM
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Hmm, that last para doesn't look too clear, I mean: The rapes that are in child pornography would likely have happened with or without the camera and the subsequent sale of the video.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-23-2003, 11:47 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by sj2
But, they ARE actually doing something. They are looking at illegal material...which should be punished.
Unfortunately, thats the basis of a circular argument: it's bad becuase it's illegal and illegal because it's bad. The victim in a molestation case is pretty easy to identify, but giving people punishments identical to child molesters who have not actually molested anyone strikes me as abusive. Further, it's easy to imagine computer-generated child porn within a few years which involves no minors whatsoever in its production. Does collecting and possessing this material carry similar penalties? If an artist draws a realistic image of a sexualized child (again, with no children involved in the creation of the image), does that count, too?

Tricky ground, and not helped by vague laws. It's too easy to imagine abuses. Further, imagine an enemy who email/spams me kiddie-porn from a variety of phony addresses. Even if I delete the images, some trace of them may remain on my machine. Then the enemy alerts the cops that I collect kiddie-porn and they seize my computer for analysis. How do I prove that I wasn't collecting? How do I prove that I didn't copy the images to disks before deleting them from my hard drive? How long can the cops keep me under surveillance after an accusation has been made? Setting up a frame like this requires relatively minor computer knowledge. Given an e-mail address, I could easily flood someone with kiddie porn (titling my e-mails with "Here's that image you requested, John!") even if I never actually meet them. If "John" has only limited comptuer literacy, he may not know how to stop the images from accumulating on his hard drive, which they will even after basic deletion.

I don't trust ham-fisted law-enforcement officers to make these distinctions, which is why I dont trust laws like these. I think the officers are more likely to seize every computer in sight, file as many charges as possible, and sort it out later. Meanwhile, John's life is thoroughly fucked. In addition to losing his computer and any useful information it may have contained, he now has to defend himself against emotion-heavy charges. How do you prove that you are not a pervert?

It's too easy a law to abuse, and that kind of abuse concerns me more than trying to link a person's collection of images to some theoretical market-driven industry. If they've actually abused a child and you can prove it, nail 'em. Otherwise, proceed with extreme caution.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-23-2003, 11:51 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
But, they ARE actually doing something. They are looking at illegal material...
I'm talking about a tangible, measurable evil.

Let's put it this way: looking at a security video of people robbing a bank while privately fantasizing about robbing a bank doesn't objectively cause any additional harm to others than has already been done.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.