So what is a Suitable Punishment for Consumers of Child Pr0n?

[The Anti-Targ]

John Grisham says current prison terms are too harsh. That may be so in some cases but I seriously take issue with his claim that

“These are people who haven’t hurt anybody. They deserve some type of punishment, whatever, but ten years in prison?”

http://time.com/3511499/john-grisham-child-porn/

Consumers of child pr0n ARE contributing to the abuse of these children. IMO they are accessories after the fact. Which means I'm not in favour of much or any leniency.

If you wind up drunk surfing the net looking for some adult pr0n and come across some child pr0n, that accident should probably be seen for what it is, a dumb mistake and not subject to harsh treatment. But if you are an active consumer of this filth I think the book should be thrown at you and you deserve no less punishment than the people who produce and distribute this vile stuff.

Though perhaps a lobotomy and castration are more appropriate preventative punishments than a long, but finite, custodial prison term.

[Gneisenau]

I don't think you need to worry about those people getting lighter sentences than what you think they deserve, since it wouldn't be politically smart to suggest lower sentences for consumers of child pr0n.

[Crazydog7]

Look this is a subject you can't give a response to all in one throw. This should be an interesting thread. Its an issue I care about very deeply I was abused although at the time I wouldn't have charecterized it as such.

If you can resist your initial inclination to shot them all and let God sort them out the issue isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you like to think. I’m not saying that people aren’t hysterical about this for a good reason but many times we are so hysterical that we can’t even have a rational discussion about it. In a way hypersensitivity is good but it leads to insane occurrences like this

http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/08/all-men-are-potential-pedophiles-eyes-australian-airlines/55663/

For example what exactly is pornography? If production is a crime possession has got to be right? Wrong at least not in Russia or Japan. And all instances of rape/accusations of a coverup are treated equally right? Well not really it helps to have influence and powerful friends just ask Roman Polanski and Bernard Law.

The best book I ever read on this subject was one called “Don’t tell the Sexual Abuse of Boys” its on Amazon. Does its best to answer uncomfortable questions like “Why didn’t you speak up?” “Why didn’t you fight back?”

Oh course it was published in Montreal trust a Canadian to discuses any subject rationally no matter how distasteful. Most of the other books that try to deal with this subject matter approach it with an air bordering on a moral panic

http://www.amazon.com/Kinsey-Crimes-Consequences-Queen-Scheme/dp/0966662415/ref=pd_sim_b_6?ie=UTF8&refRID=1KDBVC38953YEC9W54FG

http://www.amazon.com/Caught-Web-Inside-Children-Predators-ebook/dp/B0026RIH00/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413432280&sr=1-3&keywords=caught+in+the+web

Not a bad book at all but it focuses without exception on girls who were victimized and relies and I’m quoting here “the fathers of the world to rise as one in righteous anger”

1. What about the mothers? Why the heck are they left out of this equation do they not have something to contribute?
   
2. The author doesn’t seem to understand that boys can also be victimized and much more often then girls will not speak or it.
   

Now as per the actual production of the stuff itself much of it being produced today is actually being produced by stupid kids on Youtube and similar sights who don’t know any better. Parents for the love of God monitor where your children go online and what exactly they do. Also try to get them to understand that the WWW thing means WORLDWIDE and once they hit upload there is no getting that video back. A pervert can get his rocks off just as easily from watching a video that to a normal person would seem almost mundane and the mundane videos carry far less risk.

[Nymeria10k]

Consumers of child pr0n ARE contributing to the abuse of these children. IMO they are accessories after the fact. Which means I'm not in favour of much or any leniency.

If you wind up drunk surfing the net looking for some adult pr0n and come across some child pr0n, that accident should probably be seen for what it is, a dumb mistake and not subject to harsh treatment. But if you are an active consumer of this filth I think the book should be thrown at you and you deserve no less punishment than the people who produce and distribute this vile stuff.

Though perhaps a lobotomy and castration are more appropriate preventative punishments than a long, but finite, custodial prison term.

I couldn't agree more. Such filth destroys these children's lives/innocence. It's so wrong to subject children to such filth especially as at their age they're not even in a position to understand what's going on or make their own choices because they're so young and simply don't understand. How goddamned awful is that? It could leave horrible psychological effects on them.

If it's a singular mistake then that's it, it's a mistake. But I agree, those filthy cretins who consume this abomination deserve horrible sentences as they are as responsible as the distributors for ruining innocent children's lives. Why? Because in an ideal world, if they didn't view this crap then the distributors wouldn't have any consumers at all and there really wouldn't be a need to subject children to this abomination. So consumers are just as responsible as the distributors if not more, as they give the distributors an incentive to do something this horrific, in a sense.

Those punishments would be more appropriate, I agree, a finite custodial sentence might not impact on the mind of such perverts much, it would be a temporary punishment and they could return to their lives of filth. But a lobotomy/castration would have a permanent effect on them and there would be no going back.

Rarely am I so harsh in what punishments offenders of certain things should receive but this is probably one of the most if not the most disgusting acts I can think of and it deserves a nasty punishment. In my eyes there is absolutely no room for leniency on destroying children's lives.

[Happy Ent]

But if you are an active consumer of this filth I think the book should be thrown at you and you deserve no less punishment than the people who produce and distribute this vile stuff.

Why? Are there other crimes for which the same is true?

Say, you watch somebody being beheaded. (By ISIS, say.) On the internet. Do you deserve no less punishment than the killer?

I’m sure you don’t think so. But you make a very harsh claim (that morally and intellectually appals me), so I expect you to explain your stance in a cogent way. What exactly is special about the crime of producing child pornography that makes it ethically different from any other crime I can think of?

(I think I know the answer, and I don’t consider it valid. Which is why I’d like your version.)

[Greywolf2375]

John Grisham says current prison terms are too harsh. That may be so in some cases but I seriously take issue with his claim that

http://time.com/3511499/john-grisham-child-porn/

Consumers of child pr0n ARE contributing to the abuse of these children. IMO they are accessories after the fact. Which means I'm not in favour of much or any leniency.

If you wind up drunk surfing the net looking for some adult pr0n and come across some child pr0n, that accident should probably be seen for what it is, a dumb mistake and not subject to harsh treatment. But if you are an active consumer of this filth I think the book should be thrown at you and you deserve no less punishment than the people who produce and distribute this vile stuff.

Though perhaps a lobotomy and castration are more appropriate preventative punishments than a long, but finite, custodial prison term.

Well, based on the flow of the article, I think you're taking that quote out of context - I think he is referring to the late night drunk oops click and not the consistent consumer. I think the former shouldn't even be a consideration whereas the latter should have some form of sentence associated to it.

Is there or should there be a distinction between "live action" and cartoon/hentai/anime?

[Nymeria10k]

Grey - cartoon/hentai/anime does not involve innocent children being traumatised. Unless some idiot forces them to watch it or something. But real innocent children are not the object of it, that's the point

[Castel]

Why? Are there other crimes for which the same is true?

Say, you watch somebody being beheaded. (By ISIS, say.) On the internet. Do you deserve no less punishment than the killer?

I’m sure you don’t think so. But you make a very harsh claim (that morally and intellectually appals me), so I expect you to explain your stance in a cogent way. What exactly is special about the crime of producing child pornography that makes it ethically different from any other crime I can think of?

(I think I know the answer, and I don’t consider it valid. Which is why I’d like your version.)

To offer a limited defense (I don't want to die defending the idea that the viewer is the same as a rapist-that seems more like an expression of anger than a strong position):I suppose that the difference is that it isn't porn and is actually useful for something other than titillation. ISIS isn't beheading people to help you get your rocks off and you're not watching with some lotion and a sock.

If someone were to make a snuff film then we would consider someone who seeks it out complicit. The film was made for the purposes of titillation and would not have been made without you, the customer. But, perhaps most importantly, the damage caused is so great and the reasons for viewing so little that society honestly just prefers to see you behind bars. I feel like this is the reason behind most of these deviant traps like kicking puppies; a convenient way to segregate.

[Galactus]

Why? Are there other crimes for which the same is true?

Say, you watch somebody being beheaded. (By ISIS, say.) On the internet. Do you deserve no less punishment than the killer?

I’m sure you don’t think so. But you make a very harsh claim (that morally and intellectually appals me), so I expect you to explain your stance in a cogent way. What exactly is special about the crime of producing child pornography that makes it ethically different from any other crime I can think of?

(I think I know the answer, and I don’t consider it valid. Which is why I’d like your version.)

The obvious one is that of profit motive: By watching child porn you are economically supporting the distributors (if not the actual producers) and thus encouraging the further production.

[Castel]

The obvious one is that of profit motive: By watching child porn you are economically supporting the distributors (if not the actual producers) and thus encouraging the further production.

No doubt HE would bring up something like WorldStarHipHop, which posts videos of violence and gets a ton of views. It's so bad that the people doing the violence actually shout out "Worldstar!" right before they slam someone into the pavement. Should all those people be charged?

(I know, I'm a waffler, my greatest flaw)

[DaveSumm]

It's interesting the common opinions that get thrown around about rape of adults (she was asking for it/she didn't really mean no/she shouldn't have been dressed like that/it wasn't 'rape rape') which many charities/groups strive against, as if it's a real struggle to convince so many people that rape is 'that bad'. Child abuse, conversely, is worse than murder and perpetrators should be castrated and burnt at the stake. I've never understood this disparity, as if when one hits 18, rape becomes far less aggravating. I don't imagine it does. I don't think looking at physical abuse of any age should be without punishment, but why people foam at the mouth about someone looking at a picture when physical rape of adults barely gets a shrug of the shoulders baffles me. I would entirely agree with Happy Ent, there are no other subjects for which people demand equal punishment for perpetrator and consumer, and there's nothing distinguishing this one.

The dark thought that lurks at the back of these ideas troubles me; I suspect many people believe that attraction to children should be punished irrespective of actions, when I see no evidence that peadophiles have any more choice than any other sexuality over their attraction.

[Solmyr]

Why? Are there other crimes for which the same is true?

Say, you watch somebody being beheaded. (By ISIS, say.) On the internet. Do you deserve no less punishment than the killer?

I’m sure you don’t think so. But you make a very harsh claim (that morally and intellectually appals me), so I expect you to explain your stance in a cogent way. What exactly is special about the crime of producing child pornography that makes it ethically different from any other crime I can think of?

(I think I know the answer, and I don’t consider it valid. Which is why I’d like your version.)

I mostly agree with this, my only nitpick is that advocates of harsher punishments of child pornography consumers would say that child pornography consumers clearly create a demand that in turn causes producers to abuse children. I am no aware of such correlation existing with regards to beheadings.

As for my €0.02:

10 year sentence for watching child pornography is too harsh. This is regardless of the context of the legal system - i.e. whether it's under a though system (e.g. US, where marijuana use lands you in prison) or a soft system (e.g. Scandinavian countries, where mass murderers do not get life sentences).

1. Child pornography consumers, although being implicitly guilty of creating a demand for child pornography, are not committing any actual crime.

2. Most child pornography consumers have some sort of psychological disorder that causes them to be sexually attracted to children. It's a condition, yet they are being prosecuted not only regardless of it, but because of it. For reference, many mental conditions can allow a person to get a lighter sentence for committing murder, rape and all sorts of other heinous crimes. Rather hypocritical, isn't it?

3. The main reason the legal system is so though on child pornography consumers is societal pressure. Most people are incapable of even thinking of this issue without immediately conflating it with questions such "Omg is my child safe from predators", "Those people are sick, burn them", "Why are you even bringing this up, everyone knows child pornography is the worst!"

A civil way to handle the issue would be the following:

- Recognize attraction to children as a mental condition and treat it.

- Don't make the same mistake that's evident in the War on Drugs (be though on consumers, cuz producers are too hard to catch) - go for the producers and destroy the black market.

- Like with drugs, government can create, regulate and distribute child pornography. No, before you cry out in horror, I do not mean actual child pornography (featuring children), but pornography with actors that look like children. That pornography would not be readily available, it would only be prescribed to those, who've been diagnosed with such a condition and weren't treatable by other means.

And now, knowing the audience on this board, I am bracing myself for the outraged comments that will ensue. Proceed ;).

[Castel]

Like with drugs, government can create, regulate and distribute child pornography. No, before you cry out in horror, I do not mean actual child pornography (featuring children), but pornography with actors that look like children. That pornography would not be readily available, it would only be prescribed to those, who've been diagnosed with such a condition and weren't treatable by other means.

Do we really know if porn reduces the desire to have sex or stray? Because we still haven't agreed on a definitive answer on whether media makes you more prone to violence. Intuitively it seems like this would work but I don't know how strong the evidence is for it. Venting as an anger management tactic seemed intuitively sound too.

[baxus]

A civil way to handle the issue would be the following:

- Recognize attraction to children as a mental condition and treat it.

- Don't make the same mistake that's evident in the War on Drugs (be though on consumers, cuz producers are too hard to catch) - go for the producers and destroy the black market.

- Like with drugs, government can create, regulate and distribute child pornography. No, before you cry out in horror, I do not mean actual child pornography (featuring children), but pornography with actors that look like children. That pornography would not be readily available, it would only be prescribed to those, who've been diagnosed with such a condition and weren't treatable by other means.

And now, knowing the audience on this board, I am bracing myself for the outraged comments that will ensue. Proceed ;).

If this thread was on any other topic, such a well-put, sensible post would pretty much end the debate.

Unfortunately, emotions usually overpower logical thinking when things such as children pornography are concerned.

Just to point out, I fully agree with you.

[Gears of the Beast]

People love to have their reactionary emotional outburts and then think that it should then apply to the legal system. This is why a pragmatic approach is a is necessary in order to decide what our laws must be. Not only do your suggestions contravene basic procedural fairness but it also would have a disastrous impact in terms of the precedents it would set.

[DaveSumm]

I mostly agree with this, my only nitpick is that advocates of harsher punishments of child pornography consumers would say that child pornography consumers clearly create a demand that in turn causes producers to abuse children. I am no aware of such correlation existing with regards to beheadings.

We can easily modify the example though; if someone did create beheading videos for consumers, nobody would advocate consumers being tried for murder.

2. Most child pornography consumers have some sort of psychological disorder that causes them to be sexually attracted to children.

I have no stats to hand, but genuinely curious: is this true? I've never seen any reason to not expect the entire spectrum of sexual attraction (men, women, old, tall, short) to include minors.

[Solmyr]

I have no stats to hand, but genuinely curious: is this true? I've never seen any reason to not expect the entire spectrum of sexual attraction (men, women, old, tall, short) to include minors.

Apart from common sense, I remember watching a documentary on the subject a while ago, but can't recall the name. In all fairness, the documentary in question was a bit biased, but the point about attraction to minors being a psychological condition(deviation) just like a number of other sexual attractions (BDSM, furries, etc.) was well reasoned.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Re: Solmyrs first post

Among all the other assertions that are.just plain wrong with your post, for example the idea that there isn't an insanity defense for child pornography, no one in the US goes to prison anymore for marijuana possession. Maybe in a few unusual situations, but if you get caught.smoking a joint your not.going prison. In many states you just get a ticket or a lecture.

And drugs and child porn are different because the manufacture of child porn has a victim.

As to your first numbered point, explain to me how posessing child porn isn't a crime.

[Solmyr]

As to your first numbered point, explain to me how posessing child porn isn't a crime.

A tricky question - you want me to explain how something, which is a crime (under current law in most countries), isn't a crime?

Possessing child porn shouldn't be a crime, if you were not involved in any way with the creation of the material. As to the why, refer to my previous post.

RE: war on drugs and severity of punishments - I cannot deny that some progress is being made in this area and the blame is being shifted to the actual wrongdoers. That is what gives me hope that the same could happen to child pornography.

ETA:

RE: insanity defense for child pornography consumers

Does this defense include the diagnosis and recognition in court of a deviation in sexual behaviour that caused the defendant to resort to child pornography? Or are you talking about a more general insanity defense, based on commonly accepted mental disorders?

[Derfel Cadarn]

But the possessor is involved in the creation; their money funds future videos (and the abuse shown therein). There arent three Transforners sequels because the producers love making them, or they're critically acclaimed art; there are three sequels because a lot of people paid money to see the preceding films.

The sentence may be too harsh (for possessig child porn, not paying to see Transformers), but it it should be a crime.

Re watching beheadings, if the motive behind the beheadings was to make money off the murders then the people giving thet money are culpable to a degree.