Bring in the case of samantha fox. In the 80s huge porn star then pop star then revealed she was 17 during her initial movies. How many hundreds of thousands of 40somethings that grew up to those centerfols etc. are guilty of viewing cp by default as of right now? Cp doesnt just include preteens its anyone under 18 even 17 and 364 days. Funny how we see the odd cases also of 17 year olds having relations with older which is allowed due to age of consent laws but if theres a sexting message or pic to their partner thats an automatic cp conviction. There are too many laws and the view is fogged for justice.

The argument for CP penalties is “justified” by the purported mental and emotional abuse endured by the children depicted and overlooks the fact that that damage was done by whoever took such pictures or made the video. I’ve yet to see a lawmaker, therapist, or child safety advocate that will/can explain how such abuse could be rendered by a person who never met or spoke with the affected children.

Second, even if true, it would also apply to the law enforcement officers and prosecutors who viewed those pictures and videos, which is compounded by using them as worms on the hook of their fishing expeditions.

Dustin, TB; excellent points. There is no logic in the way sex offenses: real, perceived or outright non-existent, are investigated and prosecuted, it’s all emotion and dates back to America’s Puritan history. Sex is bad and those who “do it” must be punished. Just look at horror movies; what are the victims usually doing right before they are killed? Making out or having sex!

Applying the flawed premise that just because someone looks at CP they will seek out a victim, anyone who enjoys killing in a video game will go out and commit mass murder. It’s not even being punished for your own thoughts, it’s being punished for what someone else thinks you will do.

The standard response from the courts to that is “we merely presented an opportunity to the defendant, there was no arm twisting involved. ” What they don’t tell the public is the amount of salesmanship that comes from the “child” or the fact that the majority of the arrests for these types of crimes are a direct result of sting ops.

This story made my day – Thank you!

TB,

Doesn’t even have to be offensive, only potentially offensive. Remember the old South Park episode of the totally non-denominational, non-offensive Christmas?

Another excellent point. The idea that children are too stupid or immature to think for themselves in sexual matters is absurd. Nature decided the human body was physically ready for sex at puberty, so who decided that young people weren’t smart or mature enough to decide sexual matters for themselves for anywhere from 2 to 6 years later? What was the basis for that decision?

As you mentioned, the same people also believe kids are smart or mature enough to decide to kill or beat someone, rob or steal, do or deal drugs, and so on. Of course, they claim that’s on a case-by-case basis.

So why not determine that on a case-by-case basis in sex offenses? Many sex offenses were consensual or even instigated by the purported victim. How are they supposedly “scarred for life”? And how does that automatically make the defendant a predator? Sounds more opportunistic than predatory. Last I heard, opportunism isn’t illegal or even frowned upon in most cases.

That’s not saying sex between adults and children should be allowed or ignored. In cases of consenting juvenile victims where no force, violence, or threat is involved, it would be more proportionate to imprison the defendant and release him when the consenting victim reaches the age of consent, IMHO. Force or violence, of course, changes the entire situation and penalties should be stiffer. Pre-pubescent victims, of course, are a whole different discussion.