Casuistry: The Good Pedophile?

[crimresearch]

Since you've narrowed the OP down to US laws, perhaps you can cite the statue that makes it a crime to possess pornography for which no children posed?

Because that is what we are talking about here...the situation of using adults to portray something that will tittilate those who are turned on by children.

I sense a lot of tap dancing around how that is illegal under American law.

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

In the USA we have also decided that mere possesion of child pornography is dangerous and therefor made it illegal so what is the discussion about? Do we have data for nuclear weapon ownership? Do we need data? No we don't

Isn't that what I said?

Anyway, didn't this thread start out considering the plight of a man who was in possession of legal materials (legal in his own country, that is), who confessed to having urges to commit illegal (and, frankly, revolting) acts? Even in the U.S. such an individual could not (properly) be convicted of a criminal offense, since he hasn't committed one!

Edited for spelling

 

[Taffer]

In the USA we have also decided that mere possesion of child pornography is dangerous and therefor made it illegal so what is the discussion about? Do we have data for nuclear weapon ownership? Do we need data? No we don't

But remember his child pornography was not real child pornography, as it had no real children in it (I assume). So how do you define child pornography? If it was real, then he could be prosecuted its possesion, but not for actually doing any harmful act on a child.

 

[drkitten]

But remember his child pornography was not real child pornography, as it had no real children in it (I assume). So how do you define child pornography? If it was real, then he could be prosecuted its possesion, but not for actually doing any harmful act on a child.

There are actually three questions here.

One is what the law does say.

One is what the law could say if it were differently written.

One is what the law should say to maximize justice.

It's certainly within the remit of the United States, or any State, or any other government, &c., to make a law that criminalizes any behavior whatsoever. (For those of you who believe that "natural rights" are somehow immutable -- what happens if Congress decided to repeal the first ten amendments to the Constitution?) I think we can all agree that anything can be criminalized.

As to what the law does say, that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in many places (including, I think, the US and the UK) "simulated child pornography" is treated just like the real thing. Partly, this is to ease the job of the prosecution, that need not prove that the apparently ten-year old girl in the picture is really ten years old. Partly, this will help keep her from having to appear on the stand and relive her abuse. And partly it's because knuckledraggers like Dogdoctor simply don't care.

As to what the law should say -- I am very, very leery of criminalizing "having the wrong thoughts." I really wonder why we assume that pedophiles can't control their actions, when we know that otherwise "normal" adults can (look at the number of communities that have successfully practiced celibacy -- why can't there be a celibate person with pedophilic urges?)

 

[Dogdoctor]

But remember his child pornography was not real child pornography, as it had no real children in it (I assume). So how do you define child pornography? If it was real, then he could be prosecuted its possesion, but not for actually doing any harmful act on a child.

That is the real question. My definition would be photographs depicting naked underaged kids or kids in either simulated or real sex acts. Any faked photos would fit into this. Someone is making a big assumption that a person who would have only faked child pornography would somehow be a harmless or safe pedophile. We don't need data to show that they are or aren't. Our children are too important to put them at risk by allowing pedophiles to persist in their abnormal desires by allowing them to propagate any kind of child pornography. Should we get data in the future that shows us different, we can change the laws at that point. We can just assume that people who want to look at any child pornography are a danger to our children. Yeah so the question is what does the law(s) say about definition of child pornography.

 

[Taffer]

We can just assume that people who want to look at any child pornography are a danger to our children.

And what is the basis for this assumption?

 

[Piscivore]

Our children are too important to put them at risk by allowing pedophiles to persist in their abnormal desires by allowing them to propagate any kind of child pornography.

What is your opinon on ephebophilia? Is that an "abnormal" desire?

Do you have such strong feelings against pedophiles that get off on advertisements in clothing catalogs, or masturbating to child actors on DVD? What do you suggest should be done about them?

 

[Dogdoctor]

And what is the basis for this assumption?

It is common sense that only people with deviant sexual interests (specifically pedophiles) want to posses child pornography and these individuals are a danger to society. If we lack data so what? There are many decisions that need to be made without scientific validity. Should we not go ahead and decide based on the information we have when a decision may have an adverse effect on our children? We probably don't have scientific validity for any of our laws. People don't need the freedom to crave having sex with children.

 

[Taffer]

It is common sense that only people with deviant sexual interests (specifically pedophiles) want to posses child pornography and these individuals are a danger to society. If we lack data so what? There are many decisions that need to be made without scientific validity. Should we not go ahead and decide based on the information we have when a decision may have an adverse effect on our children? We probably don't have scientific validity for any of our laws. People don't need the freedom to crave having sex with children.

And if it is a biological querk? If they cannot help themselves, but would never hurt a minor? Who are you to pass judgement on what others think? Moreover, who are you to demant criminal records to those who have never commited an offence? If I own a gun, it does not make me a murderer. Even if I own a gun, and feel like shooting by boss who really ticked me off, that does not make me a murderer. Only if I actually do the act am I guilty of murder.

You also act as if people have no self control. Celibacy goes against our very nature (to reproduce and proliferate our genes), but people still do it. If someone can control themselves enough to never have sex, then I'm sure some people can control themselves not to hurt a minor. And even if many cannot, what about the few innocent ones?

 

[crimresearch]

"As to what the law does say, that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in many places (including, I think, the US and the UK) "simulated child pornography" is treated just like the real thing. "

Cite? These must be out of date....

"The Court disagreed saying child pornography would be illegal and not protected only if it directly harmed children. They ruled that using actual children as models or actors harmed them, but simulations of them did not. Additionally, they ruled that the government could not outlaw speech, child pornography, merely because it encourages people to act illegally. "
http://www.ethicalego.com/child_pornography.htm

" The Court suggested in Ashcroft that pornography that does not use actual children to depict sexual acts should be held under the Miller standard"
http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/fa03/james-diwan/

 

[Dogdoctor]

What is your opinon on ephebophilia? Is that an "abnormal" desire?

Do you have such strong feelings against pedophiles that get off on advertisements in clothing catalogs, or masturbating to child actors on DVD? What do you suggest should be done about them?

I guess there is a range of abnormal age related sexual desires. When you look at those who get excited by women/men much older than themselves, they don't seem to be causing any problems so we don't have a law against that. The very young are easily manipulated which is why we have made sex with them illegal. I am happy with the laws in the USA for now concerning young adolescents. If a pedophile gets off on legal materials then there is little we can do but wait for them to molest a child or two or 50 and then get caught before we can attempt to treat or punish them.

 

[Piscivore]

It is common sense that only people with deviant sexual interests (specifically pedophiles) want to posses child pornography and these individuals are a danger to society. If we lack data so what? There are many decisions that need to be made without scientific validity. Should we not go ahead and decide based on the information we have when a decision may have an adverse effect on our children? We probably don't have scientific validity for any of our laws. People don't need the freedom to crave having sex with children.

Astonishing.

It was "common sense" at one time that Blacks lacked the intelligence to warrant their liberty.

It was "common sense" at one time that women lacked the reason and responsibility to vote for themselves.

It was "common sense" at one time that anyone with "Communist" sympathies was a threat to the American way of life.

It was "common sense" at one time that witchcraft was real and punishment was ordained by god.

It was "common sense" at one time that demons cause illness.

Unless you are playing at some sort of Helen Lovejoy parody, I suggest you remember all this when you decided that "[t]here are many decisions that need to be made without scientific validity."

I have a twelve year old girl, rapidly blossoming into womanhood. I am far more concerned that she grow up in a world and a country where she is protected from those that wish to stifle her liberty to a far greater degree than from those that may wish to exploit her sexually. Especially when that desire goes unexpressed outside his own head, or pants.

That's my job, and hers. Not "society's."

Won't somebody please think of the children, indeed.

 

[Taffer]

I guess there is a range of abnormal age related sexual desires. When you look at those who get excited by women/men much older than themselves, they don't seem to be causing any problems so we don't have a law against that. The very young are easily manipulated which is why we have made sex with them illegal. I am happy with the laws in the USA for now concerning young adolescents. If a pedophile gets off on legal materials then there is little we can do but wait for them to molest a child or two or 50 and then get caught before we can attempt to treat or punish them.

And that is the way it should be. Innocent until proven guilty. Do you really want the thought police breaking down doors and arresting you for crimes you've only thought of, but would never do?

As I said earlier. 100 guilty freemen is worth 1 innocent convict.

 

[Jekyll]

I think there are some purely pragmatic problems with the law as it stands.
You take a paedophile who has found an entirely harmless vent for his desires and you punish him for that.
AFAIK looking at child porn carries a relatively low jail sentence, so that's maybe a year society is 'protected' from him. Now he's released and he knows not to look at digital pornography, so he's lost that outlet. At the same time he's seen how society treats him despite his intention not to harm anyone.

It's not hard to see the potental for a Frankenstein’s monster scenario evolving here.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Astonishing.

It was "common sense" at one time that Blacks lacked the intelligence to warrant their liberty.

It was "common sense" at one time that women lacked the reason and responsibility to vote for themselves.

It was "common sense" at one time that anyone with "Communist" sympathies was a threat to the American way of life.

It was "common sense" at one time that witchcraft was real and punishment was ordained by god.

It was "common sense" at one time that demons cause illness.

.

It was common sense that made all the rest of our laws too.

 

[Dogdoctor]

.

That's my job, and hers. Not "society's."

I am sure that all of the parents of children molested by pedophiles will not be happy to learn that it was their own fault that their children got molested.

 

[Taffer]

I am sure that all of the parents of children molested by pedophiles will not be happy to learn that it was their own fault that their children got molested.

You have intentially misunderstood his point. You cannot create a better social environment by tightening control to the point of almost no freedoms. It does not work not to mention amoral. We have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. This system is in place to protect the rights of the accused. An accusation does not automatically equal guilt! You have no way of knowing if the person in this case will harm a minor or not (evidence suggests not, as he went to great lengths to keep from hurting anyone). Think of it this way. Imagine you were attracted to pictures of pre-pubecent girls, but would never, ever, dream of harming one, and were totally content to view doctored images. Now imagine that, just because these images were found on your computer, you are jailed with a sentence of those who actually molested a child. Would you think it's fair?

 

[Dogdoctor]

You have intentially misunderstood his point. You cannot create a better social environment by tightening control to the point of almost no freedoms. It does not work not to mention amoral. We have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. This system is in place to protect the rights of the accused. An accusation does not automatically equal guilt! You have no way of knowing if the person in this case will harm a minor or not (evidence suggests not, as he went to great lengths to keep from hurting anyone). Think of it this way. Imagine you were attracted to pictures of pre-pubecent girls, but would never, ever, dream of harming one, and were totally content to view doctored images. Now imagine that, just because these images were found on your computer, you are jailed with a sentence of those who actually molested a child. Would you think it's fair?

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that we can decide that certain behaviors are dangerous for society and not allowable. We do it all the time. I place child pornography in that category, you don't.

 

[crimresearch]

And neither do the US courts, apparently.

 

[Taffer]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that we can decide that certain behaviors are dangerous for society and not allowable. We do it all the time. I place child pornography in that category, you don't.

Now hold on a minute, that is not the same thing. I do not support child pornography. Additionally, we are arguing about the freedom to be innocent until proven guilty, based on the case given in the OP. You say much more then simply locking up all those who view child pornography. You say that we should take preventitive measures against those that even have the possibility of becoming dangerous to society, and in this I cannot more strongly object.