I thought that might be what you meant and wrote my original response from that perspective but then changed it. I don’t support a strict liability standard for statutory rape either, but I’m not sure if “she told me” should be enough – I’d say make it a recklessness or negligence standard; it’s not a defense that the accused didn’t know, but it is that the accused made an actual effort to find out
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
It SHOULD be difficult for the government to throw people in jail. The burden should not be on you to prove you were deceived. If many more people get away with it, I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing
[/QUOTE]
I don’t agree with that. It should be difficult for the government to throw people in jail who didn’t do anything wrong. People who have actually committed bad acts that are illegal should be penalized for those acts. Making it easier to convict the guilty is good, or at worst neutral, unless it also makes it easier to convict the innocent, which is bad.
I’m not surprised you feel that way; police are almost inherently biased against the accused, possibly because of the nature of their job.
Here’s what you’re missing; nobody NEEDS to make a case that too many innocent people are getting falsely accused. William Blackstone said, “All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.”
That is the bedrock principle on which this nation’s legal system was founded. The current state of child porn law turns that principle upside down.
Furthermore, you seem totally unable to understand that it is quite possible for a person to be in possession of child porn through no fault of their own.
The situation has gotten to the point where a person who simply possesses child porn has a significant chance of receiving a longer sentence than a person who physically abuses a child!
IF this is true–and to the extent it might be true–it’s because we find children to be worthy of a special level of protection.
“In possession”…? The scenarios you’ve mentioned–someone sends you one image, or you’re at work and a spam program send you an image–don’t constitute “possession.” In fact, the link you provided gives several pieces of advice for dealing with such scenarios, including:
…
I’ve very skeptical of your claim that people who have simply been sent one image (by an acquaintance or by a spam program) have been convicted, on that basis alone, for possession of child pornography. Can you provide any verifiable examples of such?
It doesn’t have a thing to do with that. It has to do with child pornography being a heinous, disgusting crime against children. Even an unemployed bum knows that.
Your position that somehow a countable amount of innocent people have been sent up the river because they were in possession of child pornography due to no fault of their own is laughable.
How about coming clean and telling us what YOUR stake is in this. What’s up, Flyer? Why do you have an interest in making kiddy porno a lesser offense? Why do you want entertainment that makes it appear that children are having sex?
What’s going on with you?
And I don’t think I crossed any boundaries. The OP made some rather controversial suggestions to water down consequences to very serious acts. He offered no evidence that doing so would benefit society in the least.
And how is it out of line asking an OP if their position has any personal stake? The answer could help focus the purpose of their objective.
I never claimed that somebody with a single image has been convicted. I do, however, claim that such a person is in serious legal danger.
My stake? Several.
The desire to restore the traditional presumption of innocence.
The desire to restore a sense of proportion and rationality to sentencing guidelines.
There is a theory (right or wrong, I don’t know) which holds that somebody who possesses child porn – even if it’s simulated – would be less likely to actually molest children. If this is true, then it holds significant potential to reduce harm to society, and therefore should be given a fair chance.
Incidentally, your response is a good example of why this topic is so difficult. The fact that child porn is “a heinous, disgusting crime” is irrelevant. You’re letting your emotions take over, instead of discussing this issue logically and rationally.
Now, in your next response, please answer these questions. (A) Have you read any of my links? (B) How do you feel about the fact that the majority of federal judges think that the current laws are too strict?
We already used logic when we outlawed child pornography and decided as a society to hammer short eyes. And just because some liberal judges hols an opinion that you happen to like doesn’t make them right.
About this theory, BTW. Any cite from anyone credible?
So just send such an image to every email address you can generate. Then from all those who respond, you have built a valuable list of valid email addresses, that are known to read & respond to email from strangers. Which you can now sell to all the spammers. What a way to get rich quick!
Since there is absolutely zero worthwhile use of child porn it does make sense to wonder about the reasons someone would want to lessen the scope or penalties for the making or posession of it. Is anyone claiming that there are too many people incarcerated for involvement? That its users shouldnt be on watchlists?
The SC has already ruled that drawings and depictions involving of legal age models is legal. Just what specific change to the law does the OP want?
I wouldn’t want it to be that easy to get out of it too. I imagine something like setting a reasonable standard where one party or another provides some backup saying age was exchanged. Maybe a text from the girl saying she’s 18 is good enough. I wouldn’t want a person to get out of charges simply by saying “They told me they were 18, the end”
Sorry, I didn’t mean it as cavalier as I made it out to me. I should have added that if many more people get away with it* and more innocent people are not jailed for it*, I don’t think its necessarily a bad thing
1: Agreed. No child, no crime. I would go back to 2002 Case Law and get rid of the provisions in the PROTECT Act of 2003 that make simulated or cartoon obscene materials containing fictional minors be specially punished beyond ordinary obscenity, and that instruct to disregard the nonexistence.
2: Actors pretending to be minors IS legal, BUT I dunno about deliberately and overtly selling it as “simulated CP”. We don’t sell action movies as simulated terrorism and murder, even if people want to see explosions and gore. (And like someone said: Somebody produces “Cookie Girls III: Into the Van”, the target audience will know what’s up.)
Overcomplicated. As a majority of porn now flows online, it would be a mess to keep track of what was made where and where are the records kept. Besides, a key element with porn is if the performer is legally enabled to enter the contract and sign the releases, and that itself can vary widely independently of the AOC. Mind you I was around for the original Traci Lords mess and believe me she was no child and her material was no “child” porn… but it broke the rules nonetheless and had to go.
4: Well, OK, could be considered, if it’s a couple pics randomly. OTOH half a gig’s worth of cached hits over a month, then you got troubles, Mr. Glitter.
5: Some states already do seek to provide some more “fine grain” to the registries, though others do still allow for confusion – it’s more a case of refining how the the classification of offender categories, and the reporting, are carried out. Another part of the problem there is how members of the public don’t bother to look up the details of the case and treat all the same. (And surely someone arrested for plain old prostitution should not be on it?)
Can’t find a cite but I thought there was a [federal? ] law about adult actors pretending to be minors having sex. I recall reading an article about this regarding the movie “American Pie” and how they had to work around it.
I’ll clarify. I support strict laws against kiddy porn, but that doesn’t mean you can convince me to support any damn thing simply by saying “this is a strict law against kiddy porn.” Punish anyone who engages in sexual acts with someone under the age of consent[1], anyone who induces or coerces people under the age of consent to engage in sexual acts, anyone who records people under the age of 18 engaging in sexual acts, anyone who distributes those recordings, and anyone who deliberately consumes or seeks out those recordings[2]. I don’t see the utility of kiddy-porn laws that punish people who aren’t doing those things.
[1] Allowing a certain degree of exception when said minor actively deceives that person
[2] Allowing a certain degree of exception when said minor is the person doing the recording or distributing, as long as there’s nothing shady happening with that
Now, mind you – part of the issue with the legislation/court fights in the late 90s and early 00’s culminating in that one, was that the legislators enacted overbroad and vague statutes on the matter that created issues with stuff from American Pie to The Tin Drum. Now, OTOH,** if **a film or video is ruled to be obscene then *that *can justify taking action to stop its distribution, whatever the age of the character the actor portrays. But that had always been the law and had worked just fine.
Right. The purpose behind laws to “protect” juveniles from sexual things is that we believe that they (the juveniles) are too immature to understand it and all the ramifications that flow from it. The question then becomes, if a juvenile doesn’t sufficiently understand sex and is thus legally deemed incapable of consenting to it, how can they possibly form the criminal intent (mens rea) to do something that they don’t understand and can’t consent to? In reality, the response should be to recognize that the kid didn’t understand what she was doing when she took pictures of herself and send her home as a not-guilty person possibly in need of some sexual counseling. Part of criminal intent is knowing what it is that you are doing.
] law about adult actors pretending to be minors having sex. I recall reading an article about this regarding the movie “American Pie” and how they had to work around it.