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

[Solmyr]

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.

If you wish to condemn child pornography consumers solely on this argument, then as long as the child pornography was obtained without spending any money (e.g. downloaded for free) then there's no crime? To take it one step further, possession alone would not be a crime unless the prosecution can prove a money transfer between the consumer and the producer.

[The Fallen]

Most of us agree abusing children is wrong. Child porn is wrong. Possessing it is, and should be, a crime. So there should be some punishment. You think 10 years is too long? Fine. Give them less time and monitor them once they're released.

[Happy Ent]

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.

But that can’t be an argument, can it? Even thinking about it for 60 seconds dismantles it.

In particular:

1. Consuming child pornography is thus fine as long as you don’t pay for it.

2. Even more perversely: the immorality of consuming child porn is inversely proportional to if the rapist enjoyed it. Watch a really crazy person rape a child because he can’t help himself: no offense. Watch somebody who only does it for money: castration.

Surely nobody thinks like that? So where am I falsely representing your argument?

[The Fallen]

Sorry. DP.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Could those making blanket statements please remember that child porn can also cover ridiculous stuff like sexting between teenagers.

[baxus]

But the possessor is involved in the creation; their money funds future videos (and the abuse shown therein).

Following this logic, all American tax-payers are guilty of U.S. military actions all over the world.

As an added bonus, child pornography possessors may fall back on the whole mental disorder excuse while American tax-payers can hardly say the same.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

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.

At the very least, we know there are cases where pedophilia was caused by a brain tumor:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/308520/

[Solmyr]

Following this logic, all American tax-payers are guilty of U.S. military actions all over the world.

As an added bonus, child pornography possessors may fall back on the whole mental disorder excuse while American tax-payers can hardly say the same.

I wouldn't be that quick to discount all American taxpayers from that :rolleyes:, but I digress, lets return to the topic at hand.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Following this logic, all American tax-payers are guilty of U.S. military actions all over the world.

As an added bonus, child pornography possessors may fall back on the whole mental disorder excuse while American tax-payers can hardly say the same.

And also, drug users are responsible for cartel violence in South and Central America, and Southeast and Central Asia.

[Castel]

People have argued that all those people are complicit. The only difference is that, in our minds at least, we view child porn as a smaller pool where it's easier for one person to have an impact AND we give more of a shit. Consistency is a lost cause.

[The Fallen]

But drugs shouldn't be illegal. It's the illegality that creates cartels and the violence that goes with it, to a large extent. You can legalize drugs in the U.S. and then the Mexican, Colombian et al governments can take over that business/legislate it and put a big dent in all the violence. Not to mention that drug kingpins would then become legitimate businessmen. And you can make the same, albeit not as strong, argument about wars.

Can we make the same argument about child porn?

[Castel]

Should say...slave labour be legal? Because the same argument applies.

[The Fallen]

Should say...slave labour be legal? Because the same argument applies.

Isn't slavery inherently wrong? I wouldn't equate drug use with being inherently wrong. And not all wars are fought for wrong reasons.

[Guy Kilmore]

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 ;).

The treating of pedophilia is...challenging at best...it would be like treating someone for heterosexuality or homosexuality. We are combating a powerful drive, because even the most successful forms of a treatment are met with high levels of recidivism. Even the successful cases are still combating some powerful urges. I also think it is very unclear on how pornography handles in fulfilling that drive. I think we could find easier answers if we look how it affects heterosexuality and homosexuality.

With all of that said, I do agree that there should be a discussion on how, we as a society want our legal system to interact with these individuals.

[Alarich]

If I pay someone to kill another person and make a photo or film of it, so I can watch it again and again, should that be a crime?

And second thought:

If I just tell someone to do that (without payment), should that be a crime?

IMO yes, because it is incitement.

Taking it from there, I would say that the possession of large amounts of cp is a very strong indication that you are inciting people to commit the depicted crimes.

Now where is the difference to ISIS beheading videos etc.?

1. The victim of the crime: there is a difference between children and adults and the law should (and does) assume the children do need greater protection than adults because they cannot protect themselves as well as adults. That's why the abuse of wards is (at least over here) is punished more severely: the law protects those more who cannot protect themselves.

2. Intent of the producer: why do we consume porn? because it depicts something we want. We identify ourselves with what is happening on screen, in the case of cp with the perpetrator. Basically cp is made for a "friendly" audience, we are not witnessing propaganda, random acts of violence etc. - what the viewer sees is abuse that has been put in scene for the viewing pleasure of the consumer.

3. The crime itself: Sexual abuse is considered an especially heinous crime because it aims to humiliate and destroy the personality. Add to that children who cannot defend themselves and "trained" to accept the abuse (even later as adults).

The punishment of possession of cp is part of a prevention. Considering these circumstances, I'm okay with the punishment of possession in principle, although I do think that possession and abuse are not the same and should therefore not be punished with the same severity.

[Castel]

Isn't slavery inherently wrong? I wouldn't equate drug use with being inherently wrong. And not all wars are fought for wrong reasons.

Inherently wrong has nothing to do with it. You're saying that drugs don't count because it is the illegality that causes the problems which is not the case with child porn. Can the same be said of the guy wearing Nike's sewn by a 20-month-old baby?

[Lord Freypie]

We are way past the point where digital images can be used to generate realistic child pornography without harming real childrens (and considering that digital pornography exists there's no excuse to possess real version actually - out of the "accidental drunk click on lolita porn" arguement).

Then it's a question of "is the existence of child pornography favoring real pedophile acts by consumers" or "is child pornography answering a demand without aggravating its consumers behaviors (or even helping them to refrain their tendancies through masturbation)".

No idea of the answer, but some sociologal/psychological studies may probably find which of these two proposals is the more statistically true.

Then governments should either encourage the production of digital child pornography and tolerate its use either be even harsher forbidding all kinds.

[Alarich]

Consistency is a lost cause.

Consistency is overrated. There's nothing wrong in applying different standards to different situations. Child pornography are not drugs. Sewing shoes is not child pornography.

[Dolorous Gabe]

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 ;).

:agree:

This and only this.

However, I don't think there is a reasonable way of treating the disorder yet discovered. On the other hand, I don't think there are many looking to find one.

[The Fallen]

Inherently wrong has nothing to do with it. You're saying that drugs don't count because it is the illegality that causes the problems which is not the case with child porn. Can the same be said of the guy wearing Nike's sewn by a 20-month-old baby?

Should we throw him in jail? I don't think so. But the crimes are different. Child porn is explicitly a criminal act from beginning to end; the production and possession. Wearing Nikes is not criminal.

Now, should we do more to end sweat shops and slave labor? Absolutely. And we do fight against sweatshops. Aren't they illegal here in the U.S.? Americans protest companies like Nike, and Gap and all the others for those reasons all the time.