# 200 years for looking at kiddie porn? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936 "2003-05-23T01:07:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/1 "2003-05-23T01:07:32Z")
[http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0519sexlaw.html](http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0519sexlaw.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). ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/2 "2003-05-23T01:11:57Z")
I’d have to agree with that. Unless he was involved in the actual production of those images, the sentence is excessive. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/3 "2003-05-23T01:34:39Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/4 "2003-05-23T01:45:28Z")
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. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/5 "2003-05-23T01:46:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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! ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/6 "2003-05-23T01:53:17Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/7 "2003-05-23T02:08:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/8 "2003-05-23T02:41:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/9 "2003-05-23T03:55:10Z")
Same narrow minds that imprison drug users instead of dealers. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/10 "2003-05-23T06:20:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > Do as I say, not as I do! Oh, like _that’s_ a stretch for O’Reilly… ---
**Author:** ![ticker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@ticker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ticker)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/11 "2003-05-23T10:01:44Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/12 "2003-05-23T10:07:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. > [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/13 "2003-05-23T10:45:53Z")
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”? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/14 "2003-05-23T12:10:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tarantula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e274bd/32.png) [@Tarantula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tarantula)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/15 "2003-05-23T12:17:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. … ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/16 "2003-05-23T12:52:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/17 "2003-05-23T13:04:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=182328). 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. ---
**Author:** ![coax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@coax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coax)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/18 "2003-05-23T13:24:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/19 "2003-05-23T13:25:32Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936/20 "2003-05-23T14:14:12Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-years-for-looking-at-kiddie-porn/176936.md?page=2)