A Life Sentence for Possessing Child Pornography?

[TheTrueCentrist]

Yes, life sentence could certainly fit the crime.

Child porn–possession, trafficking of, making, causing to be made–is all evil. A horrible evil that harms, mutilates and kills children every year, every day. Most of you have NO idea what “child porn” even entails and don’t want to know, shouldn’t have to know.

How does viewing images harm, mutilate or kill children, you might ask? because as mentioned above, the supply and demand factor. someone has to create the photos and there is a child victim (from infant to teen).

But demand is tied up with money. When we say someone causes demand, we mean that they are willing to pay money. If we assume that this man never paid or joined some underground organization, then I can’t imagine how the producers could have been influenced by his actions. This does not seem like an unreasonable assumption. From what I understand, it would be possible to create such a collection by simply downloading them from anonymous public image boards (e.g. the *chans) or by accessing the deep web.

 

[michelleds]

They are not exceptions. There have been several cases such as this one where people were jailed for possession of cartoon porn, in which no children were actually harmed. Moreover, in cases such as the one I originally posted, this man will face a longer sentence than a person who actually abused children.

I don’t think that the article is saying that looking can’t be as bad as touching, but that it usually isn’t.

first, they are, by definition, exceptions. denying that they are exceptions is silly.

second, Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, the defendant you mention in the OP, does not face a longer sentence than a person who actually abused children; some child abusers will get more, some will get less. sentencing grids, criminal history, mitigating and aggravating factors will all come into play.

It’s important to note that the sentencing judge ran each of Vilca’s sentences consecutive rather than concurrent (the two options legally available).

Please note the FACTS in this case:

1. Defendant was found guilty by a jury. a jury who along with the judge, attorneys, court reporter and bailiffs all had to look at and watch the child porn in question.
2. Defendant was found guilty of **454 **counts of possessing child porn including still images and video clips.
3. all told, **the videos alone ran 38 hours **(the jury was not forced to watch all 38 hours by agreement of the defense and prosecuting attorneys)

Facts that I was unable to find include the ages of the victims but most of the file names did include that information.

So, yes, these sentences are fact-driven. That sentencing judge sat in that courtroom, watched the defendant, listened to all of the evidence, and took the jury’s verdict. Then he sentenced the defendant, both within the guidelines and as he believed was appropriate. believe me, that defense attorney would have filed several motions in an attempt to get a different verdict and sentence.

 

[pnewton]

They are not exceptions. There have been several cases such as this one where people were jailed for possession of cartoon porn, in which no children were actually harmed. Moreover, in cases such as the one I originally posted,

I guess this is what bothers me about the sentence. First, I believe that in the majority of cases, everyone deserves one chance. Probation is not an easy thing and is still punishment. Even if this is a particular crime that deserves prison, I think the five years given to a single charge is more reasonable than this insane stacking.

I think there are several here that are missing the point. No one is suggesting that possession of child pornography is not a serious crime, just whether it should be punished on the same order as a serial killer, career violent criminal or running a drug cartel.

 

[Elizabeth502]

first, they are, by definition, exceptions. denying that they are exceptions is silly.

second, Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, the defendant you mention in the OP, does not face a longer sentence than a person who actually abused children; some child abusers will get more, some will get less. sentencing grids, criminal history, mitigating and aggravating factors will all come into play.

So, yes, these sentences are fact-driven. That sentencing judge sat in that courtroom, watched the defendant, listened to all of the evidence, and took the jury’s verdict. Then he sentenced the defendant, both within the guidelines and as he believed was appropriate. believe me, that defense attorney would have filed several motions in an attempt to get a different verdict and sentence.

 

[Warrior1979]

I’m one that believes that possessing is not the same as actually abusing. By possessing I don’t mean trafficking, producing, etc. either.

People may have a curiousity, perversion, etc. about something, but actually abusing another human being is an absolute indication that the person is physically dangerous to society. IMHO, that puts them right up there with vicious felonies such as murder. People like that should, at minimum, be thrown in prison for life, with no possibility of parole.

I don’t believe that simple possession falls in that category. It is most certainly an indication that there is a serious problem with that human being, and that the person should be punished accordingly and watched when and if they are released, but I wouldn’t go as far as saying that they are irreformable and should be put in prison for all time.

Also each case has to be considered on its own merits. For example, a 16-year-old in possession of 100 graphic photos of his girlfriend, or even himself, might be able to charged with possession of child pornography under the laws of certain states/countries. This obviously has nothing to do with a 40-year-perv with explicit photos of young girls, and should be handled differently.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, the defendant you mention in the OP, does not face a longer sentence than a person who actually abused children; some child abusers will get more, some will get less. sentencing grids, criminal history, mitigating and aggravating factors will all come into play.

The man had no prior criminal record and was not accused of anything but possession, therefore it is difficult to imagine there were many aggravating factors. It is trivial to find cases in which children were actually harmed by the defendant where the defendant was sentenced to less time. Here is one example: washingtonpost.com/local/dc-man-is-sentenced-to-21-years-in-prison-for-sexually-abusing-3-female-children/2011/11/10/gIQAJizq7M_story.html

A 39-year-old Washington man has been sentenced to 21 years in prison for sexually abusing three children… first-degree child sexual abuse with aggravating circumstances, attempted first-degree child sexual abuse with aggravating circumstances and second-degree child sexual abuse with aggravating circumstances.

1. Defendant was found guilty by a jury. a jury who along with the judge, attorneys, court reporter and bailiffs all had to look at and watch the child porn in question.
2. Defendant was found guilty of **454 **counts of possessing child porn including still images and video clips.
3. all told, **the videos alone ran 38 hours **(the jury was not forced to watch all 38 hours by agreement of the defense and prosecuting attorneys)

Those are all facts that might explain why the judge and jurors gave him such a long sentence, but it doesn’t make them right; it does not prove that the sentencing is proportional to the crime.

I think the number of pictures + videos he had (and the length thereof) are more or less irrelevant. The only thing that it proves is that it was intentionally downloaded. Do we sentence rapists differently depending on if they raped someone for 5 minutes as opposed to an hour?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I think there are several here that are missing the point. No one is suggesting that possession of child pornography is not a serious crime, just whether it should be punished on the same order as a serial killer, career violent criminal or running a drug cartel.

Correct, a life sentence for possession only, with no past criminal history.

Not creating porn
Not child abuse
Not trafficking

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

People may have a curiousity, perversion, etc. about something, but actually abusing another human being is an absolute indication that the person is physically dangerous to society.

That is a testable assertion. It has been tested. What were the findings?

Looking forward, Seto says, “C.P. offenders are relatively unlikely to commit contact offenses in the studies that have followed them.” Over all, the recidivism studies indicate that only 2 percent of child pornography offenders committed a sexual offense involving physical contact during the follow-up period, which ranged from 18 months to six years. In short, says Hanson, “there does exist a distinct group of offenders who are Internet-only and do not present a significant risk for hands-on sex offending.”

 

[michelleds]

I think the number of pictures + videos he had (and the length thereof) are more or less irrelevant. The only thing that it proves is that it was intentionally downloaded. Do we sentence rapists differently depending on if they raped someone for 5 minutes as opposed to an hour?

Yes, we might. and if you would just think that thru, you could probably figure out why.

I will stand by my statement that the jury and judge viewed the images and convicted and sentenced accordingly. in this case, those of us in armchair mode cannot in any way have all the facts necessarily to second guess the people actually in that courtroom.

furthermore, some of the cavalier attitudes expressed on this thread indicate to me that many if not all of the posters have no idea what child porn actually is. let me tell you, it’s not the JC Penney catalog. It’s not even playboy or penthouse. and those children are victimized every single time some pervert views those photos, images or videos. every. single. time. Don’t believe me? ask one.

the law in the US is a land of black, white and gray. cases are fact-driven. would it make any difference to your cut and dry theory that touching is always worse than “mere possession of images” if you compared an over-the-clothes touching that happened one time to watching a 90 minute video where a child was injured to the point that she would never be able to bear children?

 

[manualman]

This is a tough one. I used to WORK with a guy in the office who I much later found out had been previously convicted of collecting child porn. My jaw put a hole in the floor. You tend to expect that such guys would exude a slimy malevolence and that if you were just looking you could spot them. Not so with this one. He was like the grandpa of the office. Outgoing, willing to help out, contribute ideas, go out to lunch… no clues.

Did he really change or was he still looking for opportunities? They say this is something people don’t get better from. What do you do then? I don’t know. Lord have mercy.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Here is an interesting conversation the reddit.com community had with someone who claimed to be a non-criminal pedophile:

reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/lf6l7/iama_closet_pedophile_in_my_early_20s_ama/?sort=top

 

[Warrenton]

The criminal justice system is a joke in this country. People who commit crimes like this have no fear of being incarcerated. They get 3 meals a day, shower, tv, access to the internet. How many out there today get 3 meals a day?

It’s a safe bet that the defendant in this case is afraid.

While he will enjoy being fed and watching tv, he probably will not enjoy the physical abuse, threats, sexual assault, and hepititis that he will also receive as a result of his life sentence.

The sentence is excessive. He should receive a sentence sufficient to rehabilitate him. Followed up with active probation and mandatory sex offender treatment, he ought to be rehabilitated within five or ten years.

He is getting the same effective sentence as Charles Manson. Less than the Lockerbie bomber. Less than the vast majority of violent rapists.

Punishing the consumers of criminal activity does not work. Vide: the “war on drugs,” the Wall Street insider trading scams, the mortgage scams, all of which have been complete and epic failures.

But yes, killing all lawbreakers or banishing them to a concentration camp does reduce crime, but only if one is willing to execute and banish a lot of innocent people along with the guilty, since the implacability of that kind of system instills fear, not its justice.

 

[Warrenton]

Here is an interesting conversation the reddit.com community had with someone who claimed to be a non-criminal pedophile:

reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/lf6l7/iama_closet_pedophile_in_my_early_20s_ama/?sort=top

Interesting. From a standpoint of natural selection, it makes sense some people would be predisposed toward this kind of conduct, since in certain circumstances, even criminal behavior can confer some competitive advantage.

 

[Warrior1979]

furthermore, some of the cavalier attitudes expressed on this thread

Not a single person on this thread has expressed a cavalier attitude. However, the beliefs of some in this thread don’t necessarily conform to your own, which is why you consider them “cavalier.”

Actions matter. Should, say, a person that has some of those beheading videos on their computer be charged with first degree murder? Well, in your form of logic, there is no difference between having them on your computer and actually doing it, so obviously their sentence should be the same as that person that committed first degree murder. What if someone was found with movies on their computer that including spanking of children. Well, in your form of logic, their is no difference between spanking videos and actually smacking kids, so they should be charged as if they actually hit the children.

This line of logic is objectively wrong. All one has to do is simply look at the way the Church views sin; thought versus action. It most certainly does not coincide with your view.

indicate to me that many if not all of the posters have no idea what child porn actually is. let me tell you, it’s not the JC Penney catalog. It’s not even playboy or penthouse. and those children are victimized every single time some pervert views those photos, images or videos. every. single. time. Don’t believe me? ask one.

For what it’s worth, nobody said it wasn’t a egregious evil. However, simple common sense dictates the looking at evil and actually committing the evil are not the same thing.

 

[Birdpreacher]

To think he would have gotten less time if he actually touched a kid

/of course I am against all forms of exploiting children

 

[perro_sarnoso]

reason.com/blog/2011/11/07/a-life-sentence-for-possessing-child-por

A man with no previous criminal record was recently sentenced to life in prison for possession of child pornography. Does the punishment fit the crime? This author thinks it does not. What about CAF?

[no previous record]…you must think that this is extenuating in some abnormal way.

Consider it, " getting off easy".

The Bible talks about it being better to tie a grinding wheel around your neck and being thrown in the ocean or something like that.

Woe to the one who causes harm to one of these little ones.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

A Life Sentence for Possessing Child Pornography…

…social engineering designed to skew statistics so more palefaces are regarded as threats to western civilization and can spend time in jail.

I’m not saying they don’t deserve some serious time. But it was after-all the Clintonista’s that gave us the Child Protective Services Act that took away parents rights. Everything they do is corrupt and against good public order but to take an opposing position leaves you wide open as a friend of molesters etc.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Child pornography is not “just” about viewing or possessing, as if the crime could exist in isolation from the crime that produced it and which it documents. And how would one obtain it, if not from trafficking? The images don’t just appear on someone’s hard drive by magic.

Under federal law and case law, textual descriptions, cartoons, nude pictures of your kid in the tub, etc., don’t qualify as child pornography. The standards are quite rigorous, including the depiction of genitalia in a lewd or lascivious fashion, sadomasochistic acts. etc. The images must, in most cases, have an identified victim, from past or current cases. If you got arrested for possession of child pornography, you richly deserved it.

Child pornographic images normalize the deviant act in the mind of an offender. By seeing such images openly traded on the Internet, it can lead the offender to believe he is part of a larger community with such interests and that his desires are thus, in some way, “normal.”

Child pornographic images are used to recruit other victims. They are commonly displayed to child victims to entice them into compliance with the offender in criminal sex acts.

Child pornographic images are used to reduce the inhibitions of a molester to commit a hand-on offense of a child. Continually fantasizing about deviant sexual fantasies does NOT reduce the propensity of deviants to commit an criminal act. Dwelling on a fantasy does not reduce interest in the sin, as the Church has long known and taught. Combined with life stressors and substance abuse, the viewing of deviant fantasy images increases the risk of a hands-on offense. The research of Bourke and Hernandez for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“The Butner Study Redux,” if you would like to find the original study on-line) established that, when comparing prisoners who had been imprisoned for hands-on offenses against a child, vs. those who had been imprisoned for child pornography possession with no known hands-on offenses…there was a GREATER risk of a hands-on offense after release for a pornography possessor than for someone who had actually been convicted for a hands-on offense!

Each time the image is shared and viewed, it re-victimizes the child. If you don’t believe this to be the case, imagine how you would feel if your daughter or son (or wife or mother) were sexually assaulted, and the offender’s pictures or videos of the rape were shared and distributed to other criminals for their enjoyment and delight in the sin committed against to your loved one. What sentence do you feel would be appropriate if this was continually happening to your child, wife, mother, or friend?

A life sentence for possession is rather light, in my opinion. It is in the rare category of crimes that should merit the death penalty. If not, possessors should be warehoused for life for the safety of children, whose safety trumps the desire for freedom of a pornography collector.

 

[carn]

reason.com/blog/2011/11/07/a-life-sentence-for-possessing-child-por

A man with no previous criminal record was recently sentenced to life in prison for possession of child pornography. Does the punishment fit the crime? This author thinks it does not. What about CAF?

The problem here is the adding of prison time. If one person commits one crime punishable by r.g. 50 years imprisonement and another commits 100 crimes punishable by 6 months imprisonement, is it just that both go to prison for 50 years?

I do not think so, because punishment should be in relation to guilt. And guilt depends on knowledge and if one commited a crime 50 times it is unlikely that one is still fully aware that it is wrong. This does not exclude sending the 100 times 6 month person to prison for several years, but it forbids a simple adding.

 

[SwissGuard25]

reason.com/blog/2011/11/07/a-life-sentence-for-possessing-child-por

A man with no previous criminal record was recently sentenced to life in prison for possession of child pornography. Does the punishment fit the crime? This author thinks it does not. What about CAF?

Yes! yes he does.
They’re not just pictures! Imagine the children. They’re cold, naked, and they don’t know where they are. They’re so scared crying for their parents. Then some strange Old Man comes and takes pictures of them.
Then imagine what the kids were like after the “photo shoot.” They would be lucky to go home. They were probably forced into childhood prostitution.

So yes he does. Deserve it
God Bless