The Sex Offender System

[the_std]

So today I found an Ask Me Anything post on Reddit, done by a young man who had a child porn conviction and was willing to answer questions about it. Please find it here and read at least a little bit about it.

The reason I bring it up is this: while I do not condone child pornography, its possession, its use or its manufacture, and while the OP in the AMA post has a bit of a martyr complex going on, does he have a point about the system? He talks about being forced to take lie-detector tests, which have scientifically been proven to be little more than a scare tactic, as well as being abused by his state-appointed therapist. He talks about everything he lost, his inability to get a real job, and the mental health issues he's developed as a result of a sex offender being in the penal system.

Yes, he should have considered the consequences of his actions before downloading the files he did (he claimed he did it because "I do not have a sexual attraction to children, I was just a hormone crazed teenager who was looking for something new and exciting with pornography" and downloaded a few files containing children ranging from 13-17 years old), and he deserved the time he spent in prison, but let's try to think about it objectively... If the point of incarceration, and the justice system in general, is rehabilitation, are the actions taken against this young man helpful or hurtful? Will he ever be able to be a contributing member of society again? How about other people on the sex offender registry, the bullshit we hear about public urination and other things like that... Is the system really helpful there, or is it little more than government-funded revenge circle-jerking?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The Martyr thing is a bit because reddit really likes those kinds of posts be it this guy, or the guy with the unsubstantiated rape allegation that prevents them from getting jobs, etc. If you've read enough on there, it's really easy to get suckered in and think you're a cause and not some schmuck that had issues with the judicial system.

To the topic, its really hard to have this conversation without putting the scientific angle in which is people are genetically predisposed to be protective to the point of irrationality with children. It's our natural wiring configuration. I had a litigator one time tell me flat out, if he has a client that is going to trial molestation/rape etc. with a child, he always wants the plea. Its one of the few crimes that the defense must absolutely prove innocence and not the other way around on average. A jury can and will ignore evidence believing they are protecting children by putting the man(or woman) away and the ends justify the means.

The guy on reddit has a point, but it doesn't matter. You're not going to convince the population that it has a problem when that problem results in protecting children. Its just the system results in a very, very f'd situation if you are guilty or even implicated in this sort of thing. Honestly? They may just need a charity in aggregate. No company can risk being seen as helping these people by making a concerted effort to hire them. No church or non-for-profit would continue to see regular tithing if they made these people a priority.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't blame the government here for things people are doing quite intentionally. Most of the restrictions involving sex offenders came from victims advocacy groups lobbying extensively. It's DeToqueville in action really. Doing bad things to sex offenders will generate votes. And society will convince itself that is correct in doing so because they feel OK about it. Whereas IF you did anything like this to say... convicted vandals or thieves things or even domestic abusers, things would probably get uglier much faster.

[Rageaholic]

I don't even think he deserved prison time for this. The only person who deserved prison time was the maker of the porn website. The website maker abused children in some way (I really don't want to know), but the reddit guy only viewed it. Sick? Yes. Worthy of being locked up and grouped with people who actually abuse children? Hell no. Save prison for the actual victimizers.

It's also worth mentioning that this guy only viewed porn of teens (or at least he claims). Isn't there a different word for that than pedophilia? (I can't remember it at the top of my head).

[Duelist925]

I don't even think he deserved prison time for this. The only person who deserved prison time was the maker of the porn website. The website maker abused children in some way (I really don't want to know), but the reddit guy only viewed it. Sick? Yes. Worthy of being locked up and grouped with people who actually abuse children? Hell no. Save prison for the actual victimizers.

It's also worth mentioning that this guy only viewed porn of teens (or at least he claims). Isn't there a different word for that than pedophilia? (I can't remember it at the top of my head).

If I remember correctly, Ephebophillia.

[Nekojin]

I don't even think he deserved prison time for this. The only person who deserved prison time was the maker of the porn website. The website maker abused children in some way (I really don't want to know), but the reddit guy only viewed it. Sick? Yes. Worthy of being locked up and grouped with people who actually abuse children? Hell no. Save prison for the actual victimizers.

This has always been my opinion of it. People can't help what urges they have. They CAN control how they act on those urges. Sublimating them through a passive method (media featuring the fetish in question) is ultimately a good way of handling these sorts of impulses.

For a similar reason, I don't think that media that involves graphic sexual depiction of minors should be illegal. There's no child being harmed in the creation of such (at least, not automatically), it shouldn't be a crime. If a child is being harmed, throw the book at the creep doing it.

[gremcint]

Honestly it's so easy to download stuff by accident these days there needs to be something, maybe a review to be able to lose your sex offender status after a number of years for certain charges evaluated on a case by case basis. That's the best I can come up with.

[dendawg]

Honestly it's so easy to download stuff by accident these days there needs to be something....(snip)

I can believe in some things being accidentally downloaded, but child porn? Nuh uh. IMHO, at least.

[Andara Bledin]

I can believe in some things being accidentally downloaded, but child porn? Nuh uh. IMHO, at least.

Define "child porn."

I can tell you right now that my browser cache has something that would probably get me in trouble right now, just because I do google image searches with no restrictions. Some of what comes back definitely falls outside of what is legal to possess or even view.

[dendawg]

Define "child porn."

Child porn: Pornography that features children.

[draco664]

Child porn: Pornography that features children.

Define pornography. Is it just images and movies? Or does it include stories? Fiction? Animated cartoons?

How about the definition of children then...

In Australia, Hustler magazine once ran a spread with a 16-year-old, which at the time was legal.

So, as it's against the law now, does that make anyone who owned that edition a child pornographer? Or do you only become a child pornographer if you picked it up after the law changed?

What about the artistic topless shots of Brooke Shields that were taken when she was 10?

What about Romeo and Juliet? That's child porn by some definitions.

Not as clear cut as you might think...

[Nekojin]

Let's twist it around even more. With regard to fiction...

How about a person who is mentally mature (over 300 years of age), but has the body of a 13-year-old (physically, just on the edge of puberty)? Or a clone that is only 2 years old, with the body of a 20-year-old? Is it purely the physical appearance that matters?

Edit: Or how about Kes?

[Nyoibo]

I can believe in some things being accidentally downloaded, but child porn? Nuh uh. IMHO, at least.

Want a bet, I did back in the days of limewire, I had a habit of just downloading whole folders of stuff that people had for upload if I saw a bunch of things I wanted in them, did that with a folder of movies, there was a bunch of porn in there as well, some of it was definitely underage, deleted it as soon alas I saw it, but it does happen.

[dendawg]

Want a bet, I did back in the days of limewire, I had a habit of just downloading whole folders of stuff that people had for upload if I saw a bunch of things I wanted in them, did that with a folder of movies, there was a bunch of porn in there as well, some of it was definitely underage, deleted it as soon alas I saw it, but it does happen.

That's not accidental. You voluntarily downloaded files through a file-sharing service...you're lucky you didn't get a trojan. I was trying to debunk the argument that some pedos used, that they "accidentally" download child porn. Uh huh, like the files magically downloaded themselves on the clean, virus-free computer they proclaim themselves to have.

[Andara Bledin]

That's not accidental. You voluntarily downloaded files through a file-sharing service...you're lucky you didn't get a trojan.

Nice attempt to move the goalposts.

It's trivially easy to end up with so-called child porn on your computer. Both cached image searches and image dump downloads often contain things that could be used to prosecute a person.

And that's before you get into family photo albums that contain some toddler who nobody thought to dress up because it's a freaking toddler.

I was trying to debunk the argument that some pedos used, that they "accidentally" download child porn.

You might want to back up a few steps here before you say something you don't intend, because it was gremcint and me who are saying that it's not at all difficult for someone looking for porn to end up with questionable to outright non-legal images on their system without any intent or desire to acquire the same.

Last I checked, there weren't any "pedos" making any arguments in this thread.

[fireheart17]

Let's twist it around even more. With regard to fiction...

How about a person who is mentally mature (over 300 years of age), but has the body of a 13-year-old (physically, just on the edge of puberty)? Or a clone that is only 2 years old, with the body of a 20-year-old? Is it purely the physical appearance that matters?

I do believe there's a law in Aussieland that prevents "tiny tits" porn for this reason-because they don't want people to think it's child porn.

There are also cases of rapid aging syndrome out there and I do remember hearing a story of a girl who's mentally almost a teenager, but has the body of a six-month old.

Want a bet, I did back in the days of limewire, I had a habit of just downloading whole folders of stuff that people had for upload if I saw a bunch of things I wanted in them, did that with a folder of movies, there was a bunch of porn in there as well, some of it was definitely underage, deleted it as soon alas I saw it, but it does happen.

I have a feeling that this was more of a case of "you didn't completely check the folder." Also, this was why back in my limewire days, I stuck to music.

That's not accidental. You voluntarily downloaded files through a file-sharing service...you're lucky you didn't get a trojan. I was trying to debunk the argument that some pedos used, that they "accidentally" download child porn. Uh huh, like the files magically downloaded themselves on the clean, virus-free computer they proclaim themselves to have.

A virus or lack thereof does not necesarily make someone a child porn offender. This is more likely a wise story of "If you are getting hold of anything from file-sharing websites, CHECK WHAT YOU RECEIVE".
Although then again, I would also bet that a number of child-porn creators/distributors would've labelled them as something more innocuous to slide under the radar.

Define pornography. Is it just images and movies? Or does it include stories? Fiction? Animated cartoons?

To a point, I do believe that the law varies, but for the most part, anything that is DESIGNED to arouse. (although I do know that this can be unintentional ie fetishes)

How about the definition of children then...

In Australia, Hustler magazine once ran a spread with a 16-year-old, which at the time was legal.

So, as it's against the law now, does that make anyone who owned that edition a child pornographer? Or do you only become a child pornographer if you picked it up after the law changed?

That one would be a tad tricky. It may also come down to intent as well: for instance, say a newsagent opted to run that magazine without being aware of the content. Would they be picked up for child porn? Not likely.
Now if a customer bought it KNOWINg there was a young girl in there, that would be the case.

What about the artistic topless shots of Brooke Shields that were taken when she was 10?

Generally with those types of things, the mother or other legal guardian is heavily counselled and asked to sign release forms. I would imagine that they would allow the kid to back out if they felt uncomfortable.

What about Romeo and Juliet? That's child porn by some definitions.

Not as clear cut as you might think...

A lot of Shakespeare plays tend to delve into issues that would be considered gross/illegal/immoral today but for the time period they were set in, wouldn't be all that uncommon. Child brides feature in a couple of Shakespeare plays.

If you're referring to the Zefferelli version of Romeo and Juliet, the actress playing Juliet was supposedly 15 at the time when in fact, she was closer to the legal age at the time. (which would put your Hustler mag at around that time frame)

Most people however, when they do mention Romeo and Juliet, tend to use it in a context making the historical aspects very clear (for instance, talking about how during that time period, it would've been common for child brides), rather than the sexual aspect of it.

There's also actually a scale for this, called the COPINE scale. It's since been adapted into something a little bit smaller. Here's the breakdown:

Levels 1-2 are basically moments when kids are likely to be naked, with no sexual intent whatsoever (for instance, kid decided to take their clothes off and go running through the paddling pool). Usually they are also from legitimate sources (which covers most of what's above)

Level 3 is basically the kiddy porn version of upskirting, voyeurism and downblousing. In other words, kid is clothed or naked, but is generally not awware that they're having their picture taken. This is kinda where it gets into the creepy level.

Level 4-6: basically the kid is posed in a sexual way to varying degrees of clothed/nakedness. The last level basically shows genitalia.

Levels 7-9 are basically what most people would think of in terms of "kiddy porn." That is that either the kid is solo (Level 7) or with an adult and being filmed performing sexual acts.

Level 10 basically goes into the kid being subjected to pain for sexual pleasure, or beastiality.

The simplified scale basically ignores level 1 of the COPINE scale, Levels 2 and 3 are on a case by case basis, Levels 4-6 are classed as #1 on the Simplified scale, while the remaining levels correspond to 2-5. Level 2 is basically kid masturbating or similar, Level 3 is non-penetrative sex w/adult, level 4 is penetrative sex with adult and Level 5 is basically level 10.