A Life Sentence for Possessing Child Pornography?

[TheTrueCentrist]

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.

The 2003 PROTECT Act

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
Maximum sentence of 5 years for possession, 10 years for distribution.

There does exist a supreme court decision which allows “virtual” child porn, but people have been sentenced for it anyway.

 

[Warrior1979]

Here’s another way to look at it. You’re faced with these two situations:

• Situation #1: You catch someone looking at child pornography on the computer.
• Situation #2: You catch someone in the act of actually abusing the child.

Would you react the same?

If they are the same crime you should.

In Situation #1, I would simply call the cops and let them handle it.

In Situation #2, I would tell the cops and tell them to bring the ambulance for the perpetrator.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

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

So anyone that looks at the pictures after that is culpable? I don’t think so. Take, for example, anonymous image boards. If someone were to post child porn there, and the other viewers inadvertently saw the pictures before they were removed by the moderators, would those who were accidentally exposed be culpable? What about someone who, upon seeing the images, downloaded them before they were removed? On anonymous imageboards, the person who posted the illegal material would have no way of knowing how many people viewed or downloaded the material, his motivations would therefore not fit a “supply and demand” model.

 

[michelleds]

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 depictEion 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.

Exactly. Very eloquent arizonamike. Thank you

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So anyone that looks at the pictures after that is culpable? I don’t think so. Take, for example, anonymous image boards. If someone were to post child porn there, and the other viewers inadvertently saw the pictures before they were removed by the moderators, would those who were accidentally exposed be culpable? What about someone who, upon seeing the images, downloaded them before they were removed? On anonymous imageboards, the person who posted the illegal material would have no way of knowing how many people viewed or downloaded the material, his motivations would therefore not fit a “supply and demand” model.

If you “happen upon” child pornography images, you have the moral duty to contact the authorities and report it and you are then not legally culpable.

If you have downloaded 5 terabytes of child pornography off a P2P file server, and have NOT contacted law enforcement, then yes, you are culpable.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The 2003 PROTECT Act

There does exist a supreme court decision which allows “virtual” child porn, but people have been sentenced for it anyway.

You’re confusing 2 different statutes: the receipt and possession of child pornography (which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2)) and receipt and possession of obscene material (the anime images of children being raped), which is a violation of the Obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1462, which carries a lesser sentence. The defendant was charged with both (as well as obscene emails). The courts have long held that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, and it has to be particularly egregious material to be charged these days - but anime drawings of child rape, although they could not be charged under the child pornography statute, clearly can be charged under the obscenity statute. The societal need for free expression is clearly less important than the societal need not to encourage or condone such evil behavior.

In the case you cite, the offender had ALSO been charged with “knowingly receiving, as a person previously convicted of receiving depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 14 digital photographs depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2).” If you read further into the decision, this is a repeat offender, and the images were described by the court as sadistic and violent, justifying the court’s upward departure in sentencing.

This is a good example of someone who, at the least, should be warehoused for life with others of his kind. If he can reform himself, fine. He can do that inside a place where he can’t harm others.

 

[michelleds]

You’re confusing 2 different statutes: the receipt and possession of child pornography (which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2)) and receipt and possession of obscene material (the anime images of children being raped), which is a violation of the Obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1462, which carries a lesser sentence. The defendant was charged with both (as well as obscene emails). The courts have long held that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, and it has to be particularly egregious material to be charged these days - but anime drawings of child rape, although they could not be charged under the child pornography statute, clearly can be charged under the obscenity statute. The societal need for free expression is clearly less important than the societal need not to encourage or condone such evil behavior.

In the case you cite, the offender had ALSO been charged with “knowingly receiving, as a person previously convicted of receiving depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 14 digital photographs depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2).” If you read further into the decision, this is a repeat offender, and the images were described by the court as sadistic and violent, justifying the court’s upward departure in sentencing.

This is a good example of someone who, at the least, should be warehoused with others of his kind. If he can reform himself, fine. He can do that inside a place where he can’t harm others.

I wish I was on a computer and not my phone but Mike you are a breath of fresh air!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You’re confusing 2 different statutes: the receipt and possession of child pornography (which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2)) and receipt and possession of obscene material (the anime images of children being raped), which is a violation of the Obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1462, which carries a lesser sentence. The defendant was charged with both (as well as obscene emails). The courts have long held that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, and it has to be particularly egregious material to be charged these days - but anime drawings of child rape, although they could not be charged under the child pornography statute, clearly can be charged under the obscenity statute. The societal need for free expression is clearly less important than the societal need not to encourage or condone such evil behavior.

In the case you cite, the offender had ALSO been charged with “knowingly receiving, as a person previously convicted of receiving depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 14 digital photographs depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2).” If you read further into the decision, this is a repeat offender, and the images were described by the court as sadistic and violent, justifying the court’s upward departure in sentencing.

This is a good example of someone who, at the least, should be warehoused for life with others of his kind. If he can reform himself, fine. He can do that inside a place where he can’t harm others.

An important distinction, it was lazy of me not to catch that.

 

[vz71]

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

I have a few questions…

Not creating porn

OK, but in gaining this, is he not complicit in the creation of the material?

Not child abuse

Not personally, but if one is to gain this material, they support the abuse somewhere down the line.
He may not be the one doing abuse, but is he not supporting the one who is in creating the market for these materials?

Not trafficking

Actually…unless he was the creator of the material, then he did traffic.
Where did it come from? How did he get it if not traffic?

Now I understand that this particular case may be finished.
But these are the types of questions that come immedietely to my mind.

There are some crimes you cannot participate in without taking on a lot more immorality then the crime itself portrays.

 

[Debora123]

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?

I would say it does not. I actually feel very sorry for people who have an involuntary attraction to something/someone inappropriate. Not that I would justify the action by any means, but I can’t even imagine how hard it must be.

 

[Warrenton]

This is a good example of someone who, at the least, should be warehoused for life with others of his kind. If he can reform himself, fine. He can do that inside a place where he can’t harm others.

While I did not agree with your earlier suggestion that possession of child pornography merits the death penalty, I do agree with this.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder, and the data suggests that with treatment and monitoring, the disorder can be controlled.

Obviously, this is not a quick process. It takes years.

The problem is that pedophilia does not fit neatly into pre-exising legal categories. Punishment presupposes the idea of moral guilt. Treatment suggests the idea of disease, for which someone is not culpable.

My hunch is that pedophilia falls somewhere in between traditional criminal law and mental illness - there needs to be a punishment aspect to develop (or in some cases, reinforce) the moral sensibility, but there also needs to be treatment, since we know it works.

Based on that, my suggestion is that sex criminals like the young man in this case should be handled differently from the outset. Once guilt is determined under the criminal process, they should immediately be screened for mental disorders and placed into a secure treatment facility that combines the attributes of a prison with a hospital. How well the inmate performs there determines how soon he gets reintroduced into society. Modern electronic monitoring and probation techniques, including polygraphing, are effective.

One can ask whether it’s “worth the money.” That is a fair question. To my thinking, it is unfair that the government does zero to censor this kind of pornography knowing that there are people like the young man in the article who will not be able to control themselves. To execute him, or confine him forever in a dungeon for caving to a temptation he never ought to have faced seems unjust.

 

[pnewton]

He may not be the one doing abuse, but is he not supporting the one who is in creating the market for these materials?

This is a good question. I would think that if one becomes a regular customer to a criminal, then one takes on greater culpability. I think it good to post the Church’s teaching on proportionality:
old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party. (CCC #2266)

I guess I still do not see where remote cooperation with an evil act is on the same par as commiting the same evil act.

I guess I am also concerned about whether it will protect children more to have life imprisonment for possession of child pornography, or whether it ill afford no deterent for the pedophile to stop him from just abducting and killing children, if he already is facing life in prison. I am thinkin of the Federal Kidnapping Act (Lindberg Law) that gave a death sentence to kidnap a child and hurt him. Once one was facing the death penalty, there was no deterent for the criminal to keep the child alive. That is why (besides the Church teaching) I like punishment to be proportional.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

While I did not agree with your earlier suggestion that possession of child pornography merits the death penalty, I do agree with this.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder, and the data suggests that with treatment and monitoring, the disorder can be controlled.

Obviously, this is not a quick process. It takes years.

The problem is that pedophilia does not fit neatly into pre-exising legal categories. Punishment presupposes the idea of moral guilt. Treatment suggests the idea of disease, for which someone is not culpable.

My hunch is that pedophilia falls somewhere in between traditional criminal law and mental illness - there needs to be a punishment aspect to develop (or in some cases, reinforce) the moral sensibility, but there also needs to be treatment, since we know it works.

Based on that, my suggestion is that sex criminals like the young man in this case should be handled differently from the outset. Once guilt is determined under the criminal process, they should immediately be screened for mental disorders and placed into a secure treatment facility that combines the attributes of a prison with a hospital. How well the inmate performs there determines how soon he gets reintroduced into society. Modern electronic monitoring and probation techniques, including polygraphing, are effective.

One can ask whether it’s “worth the money.” That is a fair question. To my thinking, it is unfair that the government does zero to censor this kind of pornography knowing that there are people like the young man in the article who will not be able to control themselves. To execute him, or confine him forever in a dungeon for caving to a temptation he never ought to have faced seems unjust.

Paedophilia is a medical diagnosis of a sexual attraction to children (there is a big debate about whether the term should be further divided into groups that are attracted to different age cohorts in the new edition of the DSM-V). It exists on a continuum, like most mental disorders, and can include interest in adult sexual partners to varying degrees. It does not describe behavior. One could be a paedophile and never act upon one’s desires and never purchase or view pornography, in the same way that a person with an attraction to adults of the same sex can live a celibate life. We are not required to fulfill all our desires to live a full life. If one is “born” with either such condition (which is debatable), one can and should resist carrying it out in action or viewing images that would lead one to act upon it, particularly in the case of paedophilia in which consent cannot be given by another and which is innately harmful to the child. It is a behavioral disorder which does not fit the legal definition of insanity, as paedophiles are aware of the criminal nature of their actions, and so prison is mandated.

Sexual attractions may impel but they do not compel. As a parallel, suppose a man is attracted solely to a woman who is uninterested (or unaware, as with a celebrity) of the man. The woman will never consent to sex with this man. The man feels he cannot achieve true happiness, or satisfaction with any other partner. Would we feel he “could not control himself” if he assaulted the woman? Of course not. Whatever his feelings, we would expect him to resist them and avoid committing a crime. If, due to erotomania, he insisted that he must have sexual relations with the woman at any cost, it would be appropriate to confine him, forever if that was required for the safety of the innocent party.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that the composition of the audience for child pornography is not solely - or even, possibly, a majority - of paedophiles.

A large number of child offenders, which includes consumers of child pornography, are, in the words of Kenneth Lanning, non-preferential sexual offenders. They are largely sociopathic, and derive pleasure from domination and control of others, which can include children but also adults of both sexes (heterosexual men who turn to homosexual rape in prison tend to come from this group, as do many serial killers, serial rapists, and those who abduct and murder children) . Children are often the targets of such individuals because they can be more easily dominated, and the violation of the innocence and vulnerability of children itself represents an attraction to such offenders. There is a higher degree of violence in this population, they are more prone to other paraphilias and criminal behaviors, and have a very high recidivism rate. Both preferential (the classic paedophile) and non-preferential offenders enjoy child pornography, and as there is a continuum of behavior between the two categories, an individual can share characteristics from both poles of the continuum.

Sociopathy is common in both groups (you pretty much have to look at people as “mere objects to be manipulated” if you desire to have sex with a child), but the level of sociopathy is apparently much higher in the non-preferential group. Traditional management and treatment are also largely ineffective for this population (sociopathy is notoriously non-curable), which again dictates life-long warehousing, at a minimum.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sexual attractions may impel but they do not compel.

This, ** ^ ** in an age of misplaced “sympathies,” and the glorification of sexual disorders by those with disorders, cannot be repeated too often.

As a parallel, suppose a man is attracted solely to a woman who is uninterested (or unaware, as with a celebrity) of the man. The woman will never consent to sex with this man. The man feels he cannot achieve true happiness, or satisfaction with any other partner. Would we feel he “could not control himself” if he assaulted the woman? Of course not. Whatever his feelings, we would expect him to resist them and avoid committing a crime. If, due to erotomania, he insisted that he must have sexual relations with the woman at any cost, it would be appropriate to confine him, forever if that was required for the safety of the innocent party.

And correspondingly, it would not be appropriate to “feel sorry” for him, make moral or legal exceptions for him, etc. Nor would it be appropriate to buy his personal propaganda about how impulses are supposedly compulsions. There are such things as clinical compulsions, but they by no means apply to all attractions or impulses, and they are diagnosed by professionals, not by self-appointed, emotionally oriented lay psychiatrists on discussion forums, nor by the patient himself.

 

[Warrenton]

Sexual attractions may impel but they do not compel… Traditional management and treatment are also largely ineffective for this population (sociopathy is notoriously non-curable), which again dictates life-long warehousing, at a minimum.

Obviously you have specialized knowledge about the topic.

If I am not mistaken, the DSM IV requires pedophiles to exhibit, or act on the predeliction for a period in excess of six months and experience at least one negative societal consequence as a result. Check my facts, because I am going from memory, but this indicates at least a threshhold level of activity.

In the case of the defendant here, the arrest and conviction would qualify as a negative societal consequence.

Pedophilia does not exclude sociopathy, nor vice versa. The young man may be both.

The insanity test for criminal liabilty in force in many states dates from the 1840s, and while it is useful for many cases, is less than satisfactory for many kinds of mental illnesses, particularly those which diminish mental capacity or result from certain kinds of delusions. Nobody would willingly undergo mental health treatment that prevailed in 1840, it baffles me why we apply that kind of thinking in many modern courts. Perhaps it is because the scientific understanding of most judges has not even reached the level of the middle of the 19th century.

You made the claim that a defendant like the one in this case should be death eligible. From your post, which contained much interesting information, I am not certain whether you are moderating that view somewhat.

It does seem that a capital sentence should be reserved for the most culpapble of criminals. If someone does not physically touch someone, and if someone commits a crime that society not only tolerates but fosters through inaction, and if someone commits a crime in part due to a mental abnormality, it seems that person is not as culpable as the person who causes physical pain, while exploiting the laws of the land, in the cold light of reason.

With respect to the assertion that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, if you have not read the reports, the Hanson studies are most interesting. Twenty six states of the most judicially conservative states spend millions based on the research that says they can be.

 

[Warrenton]

This, ** ^ ** in an age of misplaced “sympathies,” and the glorification of sexual disorders by those with disorders, cannot be repeated too often.

Who is glorifying pedophilia?

And correspondingly, it would not be appropriate to “feel sorry” for him, make moral or legal exceptions for him, etc. Nor would it be appropriate to buy his personal propaganda about how impulses are supposedly compulsions. There are such things as clinical compulsions, but they by no means apply to all attractions or impulses, and they are diagnosed by professionals, not by self-appointed, emotionally oriented lay psychiatrists on discussion forums, nor by the patient himself.

Mike’s parallel posited a case of actual, physical sexual assault. From his scenario, it was difficult to tell if he went as far as to describe an attempted rape.

While the defendant in this case committed reprehensible crimes, they are different in quality and kind from rape or forcible sodomy.

As you probably know, defenses based on mental capacity must be proved by professionals. A defendant cannot take the stand and claim he is insane or mentally incapacitated.

 

[Rascalking]

Life in prison isn’t as good as the death penalty-but if you possess child pornography, a good 30 years in the slammer-telling everyone in jail what you did-would be sufficent.

No matter what anyone says, we’re talking about CHILDREN. Helpless children deserve to be protected from these disgusting perverts.

 

[Debora123]

Life in prison isn’t as good as the death penalty

 

[Debora123]

Being attracted to children is a disorder… and it is as much their choice to be attracted to children as it is my choice to be attracted to men, or Rascalking’s to be attracted to women.

It’s not a voluntary thing. And so yes, I feel bad for people who have to deal with this disordered attraction. It must be extremely difficult and we here are all blessed that it’s a problem we’ll never have to struggle with.

With that being said, abusing children is an absolutely terrible, heinous thing to do. Probably one of the WORST things a person can do (second to murder). And anyone who does this needs to be locked up good and tight for a long long time… if not for the rest of their lives.

But slipping up and looking at porn, while terrible in every sense of the word, should not be the cause of being put in jail for life, IMHO. Several years, absolutely. But LIFE??

And I’m not sure I find it appropriate to be calling this guy “disgusting” or anything like that. After all, we have no idea how well WE’D cope with the disease if we were the ones who had it. Would we be able to completely ignore it and NEVER look at porn? I’d like to think so, but who knows…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Life in prison isn’t as good as the death penalty-but if you possess child pornography, a good 30 years in the slammer-telling everyone in jail what you did-would be sufficent.

No matter what anyone says, we’re talking about CHILDREN. Helpless children deserve to be protected from these disgusting perverts.

Its funny, this age we live in; people are skeptical of all functions of government except for those functions that take lives.