How about lighter sentences for child porn offenders?

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...s_N.htm?csp=34

This just makes me sick. Just for research purposes (in attempting to see how much the topic of porn comes up in the media) I did a keyword search on yahoo news and of the first FIVE pages, almost EVERY result was a story about someone getting arrested for child porn.

Grad students, volunteer firemen, foster parents, teachers. All facing criminal records for possession or distribution of child porn. Then I came across the USA today article above. Why does these people deserve mercy?

[tabbyblack13]

Being charged with child pornography should be enough that people loose a lot more then five years of there life. Because the person that is accused doesn't fit the stereotype doesn't mean they didn't do it. Not all viewers of child porn are white males, drive a white van, and have a giant sign that says child porn watchers above his head.

[Nyoibo]

I understand what the judge is saying about them not being a threat, but that doesn't change the fact that by downloading child porn that they are supporting and perpetuating the industry.

[BlaqueKatt]

I understand what the judge is saying about them not being a threat

Someone growing/selling pot is less of a threat yet they still have mandatory sentences....(for example only-not a debate point)

or it's possible they just haven't been proven to be a threat, or no victims have come forward, or they haven't yet escalated to that point as of the time they are arrested.

Just because someone is a "frail 80 year old man" that does not mean he hasn't molested children previously or isn't able to do so.

various rapists/murderers have been quite "frail", and don't we have the 86 year old politician resigning due to a sex tape of himself and 3 women?

[Nyoibo]

Someone growing/selling pot is less of a threat yet they still have mandatory sentences....(for example only-not a debate point)

I would argue that that's not true, one is looking at images, the other is supplying people with a potentially dangerous substance (I'm not going to start a debate as to wether pot's dangerous, if you want to start a new thread)

or it's possible they just haven't been proven to be a threat, or no victims have come forward, or they haven't yet escalated to that point as of the time they are arrested.

I actually find that offensivethat's the same reasoning that's been used to try and ban violent video games, movies and porn.

Just because someone is a "frail 80 year old man" that does not mean he hasn't molested children previously or isn't able to do so.

various rapists/murderers have been quite "frail", and don't we have the 86 year old politician resigning due to a sex tape of himself and 3 women?

How do you make the jump from being in posession of pictures to a child molester or rapist?


I'd just like to point this out as it seems to have been missed

to allow judges greater flexibility to give lighter sentences for possession of child pornography when no other crime is involved.

Emphasis mine.

[joe hx]

How about some common sense when punishing child porn offenders? I'm refering mostly about teenagers who take naked pictures of themselves, and then get branded as a sexual offender for having child porn... of themselves. (see wikipedia)

Also, side thought, should child porn sentences be lighter if the child wasn't a child but a teenager?

Also, the main arguement in the article about lightening sentences was this:

He cites the hypothetical example of a frail 80-year-old widower who views child pornography on his home computer and is not a risk to act against children. That man could face a minimum of five years in prison.

First off, it seems to imply that all 80-year-old widowers look at child porn. Second, anyone who regularily views such material creates a demand for it. An increase of demand results in an increase in supply. More supply means more children taken advatage of. It doesn't matter if that demand is from an 80-year-old man or <enter stereotype here>.

[Seshat]

Someone found with any sort of porn in their internet cache, but without having specifically entered the site or followed up on the site is potentially innocent - think of all the ads you've seen without wanting to see them, all the popup windows that have popped up on you.

Yes, 'hot teen sex' ads sometimes pop up on me when I'm searching for corsetry patterns or larger-sizes bras. (Less so, now I have the NoScript plugin.) Does that mean I deserve to be hit with child porn charges to the fullest extent of the law? No? Didn't think so.

Similarly, the teenager playing with his camera, or the proud parent taking a photo of the cute thing their baby did in the bath, do not deserve to be treated as child pornographers. IMO, of course!

Providing judges with the opportunity to impose light sentences allows them to make a considered judgement about the severity of a person's crime. Not every teenager making a mistake, or proud parent, gets a "not guilty" verdict!

[draggar]

Another issue is that with some of the porn out there some of the girls lie about their age. Can you REALLY tell the difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old 100% of the time? Wasn't there a popular adult fiml that it turned out the main actress in it was under 18?

Once it comes out that the girl is, or was, under 18 then all of her movies, pictures, etc.. are illegal. Say you haven't cleaned your cache in 2 years and pics of 17 year old who claimed she was 18 - should you be arreated for having child porn?

What about a 17 year old girl sending "pictures" of herself to her 18 year old boyfriend? What if the boy is 17? Would she also be guilty of contrinuting to the deliquency of a minor?

While I agree - known child pron should be illegal and they should be put away for a long time there are still many grey areas.

[Fryk]

I think that the idea these judges have is a fair one, if applied universally. Judges should have greater flexibility to look at individual situations in sentencing in EVERY type of crime. The circumstances in each case should be given greater weight in determining the proper punishment. After all, no two people are alike.

[BlaqueKatt]

I actually find that offensive that's the same reasoning that's been used to try and ban violent video games, movies and porn.

and sorry development of violent movies/video games does no harm to anyone-you think the children being abused, tortured, and raped for child pornography are unharmed? Just to exist it has to cause harm. So not even a valid comparison-sorry.

ah but you see the link between violence and video games/ in the 50's it was comic books/in the 1900's it was novels(yes novels)-is not proven(correlation =/= causation) and has in fact been disproven by harvard nice article on it by PBS as well. the Mayo Clinic HAS proven the child pornography/child molester/rapist link.

How do you make the jump from being in possession of pictures to a child molester or rapist?

According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child., if nothing else they are an accessory after the fact.


If a person arrested for possession of child pornography, and no victims have come forward, or have been threatened into silence(usual M.O. for child predators), or too young to report(how does a child under the age of two "tell an adult?") of course there's no other crime(reported), but a 76% chance that there is a victim out there. That's 3 out of 4, I don't like those odds.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Also, side thought, should child porn sentences be lighter if the child wasn't a child but a teenager?

That's a slippery slope IMO. A 17 year old is significantly more physically developed and mentally mature than a 13 year old. I could see an argument for a picture of a 17 year old not really being child porn but a 13 year old? You'd have a tougher time making that case.

[Nyoibo]

According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child., if nothing else they are an accessory after the fact.

You missed this line "however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved"

There's also this "A 2005 paper by Canadian researchers Michael Seto and Angela Eke found that of 201 men charged with child pornography offences, 24% had committed prior offences of sexual contact and 4% went on to commit subsequent sexual offences after being charged or prosecuted"

If a person arrested for possession of child pornography, and no victims have come forward, or have been threatened into silence(usual M.O. for child predators), or too young to report(how does a child under the age of two "tell an adult?") of course there's no other crime(reported), but a 76% chance that there is a victim out there. That's 3 out of 4, I don't like those odds.

I'm going to go ahead and quote one of my favorite TV series here

"Statistics mean nothing to the individual"

And that's what this is about, assessing the individual not throwing around statistics and lumping everyone together.

[Slytovhand]

First off, it seems to imply that all 80-year-old widowers look at child porn.

It does?? Really? Crap.. I certainly didn't read the word 'hypothetical' as meaning 'most'.


Sometimes, the law is written in such a way that it is only black and white (were there photos or not??), but the circumstances are not. As Seshat suggested, what happens if a jury finds someone legally guilty (hey, that's what the law says), but in a broader sense is not doing anything 'inappropriate' or just plain silly? The judge can see it, the jury knows it, the prosecuters wish they had something better to do, but hey, the law is the law... so, if there was a mandatory sentencing then said Jane Doe gets done for the photo of herself naked in the mirror when she was 14... does she deserve to spend 5 years behind bars because, legally she did something wrong?

Next point I'd like to make may not be seen as overly valid, but still.... the USA already has problems with its penal system - over-crowding, violence, etc etc. So, if a judge knows this, and is getting pressure to not put people behind bars if possible, or at least with lesser sentences to help reduce the problems, shouldn't they go for those of 'least threat' to the community? Murderers? Lock em up. Rapists? Lock em up. 80 year old with no prior convictions? Hmmm..... (not saying they shouldn't, just throwing another spanner into the works!)


BK, you confuse me! In other threads, you are very much for a prisoner's rights, and suggesting that they should only be incarcerated for what they have actually been legally convicted of, and once they finish that time, they should be treated as any other normal citizen... but here, you've basically said that not only do they have naughty photos, but what the hell, get them with everything else as well - after all, they've probably done them anyway!

[BlaqueKatt]

"Statistics mean nothing to the individual"

guess the fact that one in five(that's 20% or almost 15 million children) children is now approached by online predators in an attempt to create more child pornography means nothing either.

BK, you confuse me! In other threads, you are very much for a prisoner's rights, and suggesting that they should only be incarcerated for what they have actually been legally convicted of, and once they finish that time, they should be treated as any other normal citizen... but here, you've basically said that not only do they have naughty photos, but what the hell, get them with everything else as well - after all, they've probably done them anyway!

In order for the "contraband" to exist a child has to be harmed, over one million children in the US alone have been sexually abused solely to produce child pornography-ranging in age from a few days old to teenagers.

Find an abused child and tell them that the person they were abused for isn't dangerous and shouldn't go to jail, or Tell Masha Allen* her 5 years of suffering, rape and torture means nothing. If there was no money to be made from it, it would decrease the amount of children harmed.


(from previously linked wiki)
In a study analyzing men arrested for child pornography possession in the United States over a one year period from 2000 to 2001, most had pornographic images of prepubescent children (83%) and images graphically depicting sexual penetration (80%). Approximately 1 in 5 (21%) had images depicting violence such as bondage, rape, or torture and most of those involved images of children who were gagged, bound, blindfolded, or otherwise enduring sadistic sex. More than 1 in 3 (39%) had child-pornography videos with motion and sound. 79% also had what might be termed softcore images of nude or semi-nude children, but only 1% possessed such images alone. Law enforcement found about half (48%) had more than 100 graphic still images, and 14% had 1,000 or more graphic images.

It's the same principle as buying a stolen car, you are charged with a crime even if you didn't know-you benefited from the commission of a crime, and are charged similarly to the criminal.

*testified before congress about the harm it does even after the abuse has stopped-her CNN interview is here

[Slytovhand]

But, you're still advocating having them sentenced on what they might have done, not what they are actually charged and found guilty of. It just goes against pretty much all of your other stances....