Your friend is on trial for possessing kiddie porn. Do you break off the friendship? Why or why not?

Okay, here’s the sitch:

Imagine you have a friend of long standing–twenty years or so. Let’s call him Al. Al has always been a good guy to you: reliable, intelligent, funny, all around good company. He once quite literally saved your life, in fact, and risked his own in doing so. If not your best friend, he’s in the top two.

If Al has a flaw, it’s that he doesn’t seem to like children. Oh, he doesn’t dislike them, but he refuses to be in their company, alone or with others. If you ask him to help paint your house, he’s there with bells on–unless kids are around. But he always insists on knowing first, and if they are, he’ll beg off. Likewise he refuses to babysit or pick up his nieces & nephews from school.

One day Al’s home is burgled. Among the items taken is his computer. A week later the police find the perpetrators, who, seeking a break, reveal that they discovered tons and tons of child pornography on Al’s hard drive. Said porn is of two types: written stories of the kidnap and rape of small children, and drawings/computer-generated images of same. There are no photographs, and the pictures are all stylized–like, say, this picture of Batgirl and Supergirl, but of younger girls.

[spoiler]
There is no nudity in this picture, nor are the images of children. I’m just putting it in the spoiler box to be anal.
http://www.patfullerton.com/superman/pix/supergirl/supergirl-batgirl.jpg[/spoiler]

The world being what it is, Al gets arrested. At his trial, he concedes that he is a pedophile. He has been aware of his urges since his late teens, and is horrified by them; that is why he avoids children. He can only find relief from his urges by masturbating to the stories and images. The majority of his stash is the stories, which he collected online; the pictures are all his own creation, and he has never shared them with anyone else. He is in therapy, and he waves his privilege so that his doctor can take the stand; the doctor says that Al has long since confessed to him his dark urges and has always seemed determined to restrain them. The prosecution offers no evidence that the pictures have been distributed to others, but says that their sheer volume points that way. Again, all the pictures are drawings & CGIs; there are no photos, and all the computer stuff is on the far side of the uncanny valley.

Okay, there’s our sitch. And now the questions. How will your feelings for Al change? What verdict do you predict, assuming the trial is taking place in your neck of the woods? And, lastly, what verdict do you HOPE for?

I have kids so I had to choose this:

I feel sorry for Al but would not remain his friend; I won’t risk the social costs to myself

If I didn’t have kids, I might remain friends with him…

I chose to cut off the friendship because I’d be too creeped out, so obviously I shan’t criticize you. But I have to ask: given that Al goes out of his way to avoid all children, including yours, why do you make that choice?

Kidnapping and rape fantasies of small children would bother me.

The questions about the “trial” can’t be answered. None of this stuff is illegal. He would not be on trial. It is not a crime to possess any of the material described, and he would never be charged. He would probably not even be arrested, but even if he was, no prosecutor would or could charge him. I’m sorry to fight the hypothetical again, but kiddie porn is only illegal if it portrays real children. This has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. No one would be prosecuted for possessing perfectly legal material.

Having said all that, I have three kids. I cut off all contact, I never speak to him agaoin, and I don’t feel sorry for him.

Dio, I agree that the charges are bullshit. I disagree that he wouldn’t face at least an attempt at prosecution. An ambitious, unscrupulous, and “righteous” prosecutor might well seek to find a way. I probably erred in assuming it had reached a jury, though.

But what could he be on trial FOR? What would the charges be? No judge would let this go forward without specific evidence of a specific crime. It would be summarily dismissed.

:confused:

Did you miss where I JUST CONCEDED that I should have not assumed the case went to trial?

When I posted that, your post said you disagreed that he wouldn’t face trial.

I’ll grant you that. Hence my edit.

Tough one. I said I’d remain his friend, but without having experienced this scenario I can’t say I’m sure.

I didn’t know enough about child porn laws to predict what would happen to him. Diogenes, is it that clearly legal to use and keep child porn of the synthetic nature described? I thought there was a case in the news a few years back involving somebody writing fictional stories - maybe a parole violation?

Stay friends and think that the prosecution is politicaly motivated thought-policing.

Convicting him for materials contained on a computer that has been in the hands of others of seriously questionable ethical standards, good luck proving it was his porn. Your friend would be a retard for admitting it and his attorney belongs in a cell for sheer stupidity if he advised the path presented in the OP as a defense.

He’s been a good person all his life, never harmed anyone (child or adult), and has gone out of his way to remove himself from temptation.

If I had never been his friend, I doubt I would become one, and would simply make sure to the extent that I could that he was never alone with any of my kids.

But given that he is a best friend, and that he has never strayed except in thought, I think I’d stay friends with him and help him to make sure he was never alone around kids, mine or anybody else’s. Looking at his record thus far, I think he’d probably appreciate a little help and support to do what he’s been trying to do by himself all his life.

And honestly, a prosecution like that would just about have to be politically (or religiously) motivated, and really seems to me to rise to the level of prosecuting a “thought crime”.

ha i was going to say roughly the same thing …

they need to prove that the porn was actionable [and I am not sure, but I agree with above, I do not think stories and illustrations are actionable, just actual photographs] AND that the porn was definitely his and not the guys who stole the computer. Not to mention, would it be possible to do nefarious stuff to the timestamps on the hdd to make new files look like they predate the theft of the computer?

Though the nefarious stuff makes me wonder if they were planing kiddy porn, why didnt they plant photographic porn and not the stuff that is borderline illegal?

Why not?

That’s all true. But I can still see it happening. For instance: Let’s say that after burglars drop their dime, the police decide to get a search warrant. Al has two computers. The bad guys grabbed his laptop (for obvious reasons), and, not being an idiot, he immediately went to this desktop and deleted all the files he could fine, and likewise tossed any physical porn. But he’s also human, and he forgets that he had a stash hidden in the attic, or in an unused bedroom closet, or whatever.

As for the issue someone else brought up, of the prosecution being politically or religiously motivated–I thought that was obvious.

Good friends are hard to find. Al’s been a solid guy for a long time. The fact that he’s doing what he can to help himself, and has obviously avoided temptation is enough to convince me to stand by him. I have no problem with the materials he has; they are gross but that has no bearing on my relationship to him. I don’t like thought-policing and would go to the wall for a guy who had possibly saved my life.

I’d feel sorry for him but remain friends with him. He knows he has a problem and he deals with it in such a way that he’s not harming anyone. What he does in his own house, by himself is his business, not mine, not anyone elses. In fact, I’d probably do what I could to help him avoid kids. (I’m hungry let’s go to McDon—a bar and grab a burger).
If he had acted anything out, this would be different, but I’m working on the assumption that he hasn’t.

So I’m clear–I voted that I wouldn’t remain friends with Al, and probably I wouldn’t; but I think I am possibly wrong to feel that way.