Should psychotherapists be required to report patients who look at child porn?
For years, California law required psychotherapists to report any patient who admitted developing, duplicating, printing or exchanging material depicting an obscene act involving a child.
The therapists accepted that requirement. They regarded it as an obligation to report producers and distributors of child pornography.
But when the Legislature amended the law in 2014 to reflect new technology, many therapists balked, complaining the new wording required them to inform on patients who posed no threat to others.
The amendment requires therapists to tell police of patients who have admitted streaming or downloading sexually explicit material involving minors.
That means that the crime of looking at child porn online must be reported. Failure to report may result in a criminal fine against the therapist and revocation of his or her license.
The California Supreme Court will soon decide whether to revive a challenge to the law brought by therapists who treat people for sexual compulsions. Instead of helping children, the therapists argue, the new reporting requirement will discourage people from seeking help for porn addictions and other sexual proclivities.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ah, but WHO is actually in the commission of committing a crime? How do LE even zero in on an IP address that has downloaded child porn? I have never downloaded any such porn (would never even download adult porn for fear of viruses) but from what I’ve read over the years regarding this is that the FBI has some sort of “finger print” on child images/videos that shoots back a red flag to them that the image or video has been seen. That means that the FBI/LE leaves this stuff on the Internet to be discovered. I thought the idea of protecting the victims in such images and videos was to TAKE THEM DOWN OFF THE INTERNET IN THE FIRST PLACE.
But, as others have said here – where would LE’s jobs be if they didn’t have anyone to arrest?
Perhaps a lawsuit should (can?) be filed against LE agencies? If you can’t sue a LE agency, then making a stink about it would probably either set them straight of allow for a lawsuit against them.
I dunno. I’m just throwing ideas out there.
I side with the therapists on this issue. Pedophilia is a mental illness that is treated as a crime. There is no help, just punishment.
Note to JZ’s comment: not all sex offenders are pedophiles. Competent therapists who specialize in making the distinction should never be compelled by law to report anyone who has a mental illness and is seeking treatment. Such laws undermine treatment.
I do not think that JZ is saying that all sex offenders are pedophiles. The research that I have read states that only a small number of “sex offenders” are actually pedophiles. JZ is speaking of the small number that happen to be pedophiles.
You are right, SarahF. I was trying to make the point that people with other mental illnesses can seek help before they break the law, but pedophiles who do are promptly arrested and incarcerated with no treatment in prison.
As for the rest of “sex offenders,” a judge with no medical training in any field, let alone psychology, “diagnoses” all persons convicted of sex offences as needing therapy and court orders it. And no matter how you answer the questions at intake of court ordered therapy, the judge’s “diagnosis” is confirmed by the shill therapists. Another cog in the prison industrial complex.
I agree. I read of a study done with somewhere between 8 to 12 known pedophiles in Europe and the same number of “normal” people (whatever that is). Each was given some type of brain scan. All pedophiles had one section of their brain that was slightly smaller than the brains of the control group. In addition, this particular area of the brain either had more or less gray matter in the pedophiles than what was in the brains of the “normal” people. I have never heard of any follow ups on these findings. Why, I cannot understand. These findings to me were huge.
One day in court with my husband, an inmate was brought before the judge. Without even knowing what the charges were, I knew he had some sort of severe mental problem. It was written all over his face. Then the prosecutor said that there were 200 images on his laptop. Unfortunately, the judge used it as an opportunity to do some “grandstanding”. No one in authority got it — this guy was severely mentally ill and needed help. Prison will only exacerbate the problem for him.
The brain is such an intricate organ that controls everything in our body. A psychiatrist once told me that the brain controls the production of 200 different chemicals. Getting just one amount off can throw off the whole brain. Mankind has more knowledge now than at any other time in history, but at times uses very little of that knowledge.
First of all none of it should be reported the therapist should treat the patient not inform on them otherwise people will stop going for help and where will we be then?? since the apple cart on this subject has already been turned over what is with these liberal states imposing harsher and harsher laws when it comes to RSO’s i thought the cry of the liberal was to defend those that cannot defend themselves. California is a pit so whats a few more thousand in jail at least that way the prison for profit machine will always have more customers
A good treatment provider will tell a client up front what the law is.
In Florida, what the client tells you I think would have to be somewhat specific before it triggered a reporting requirement.