Monday, March 26, 2012

protect the children

I know nothing about this case except for what is in the Huffington Post article. A man possessed child porn images and was sentenced to 111 years in prison, a sentence that was reduced to four years plus 12 years probation. The part that caught my eye:
While under probation, [this man] will not be able to visit any child under 18 without supervision, except with his three underage children...
This man has three underage children. Those children will not only have to grow up without their dad, they will have to endure whatever strange comments and judgments come to them about their father and about their family. All because he had pictures sick, criminal adults took of children. Pictures. He isn't accused of touching any children sexually. He had pictures. Pictures he should not have had, and he knew that. Pictures that would make nearly everyone else sick to look at, but only pictures nonetheless.


I know someone thinks they saved this man's children from whatever dastardly deeds he had in store--or perhaps someone thinks that man surely did more than the cops were able to prove. Too bad. In this country, we put people in prison for crimes we can prove they committed, not for those we fear they might commit. Or do we?


Laws against child porn are on the books to protect the children. Who is protecting this man's children? Law enforcement? Hardly. 

4 comments:

Sharon Bailgoat said...

He got sexually aroused by seeking and downloading photos of children just like your minor children being raped. Seriously get a grip.

Anna said...

Where do you think these pictures come from? Do you think the children in these vile pictures are not real children? Not really frightened or violently assaulted? A lot of these children are heavily drugged as they are raped. Some of them die from internal injuries. Perhaps you should visit a hospital or a foster home so you can tell one of these victims that they are just "pictures" to you and that what they suffered doesn't count as a crime. Shame on you.

Marie said...

Anna, not all child porn images are of violent events. Some are created and uploaded by the minors themselves. A photo or video of a violent assault on a child is evidence of a crime and current laws drive that evidence underground. I would rather have those images more easily seen so that the perpetrators can be identified sooner. Wouldn't you?

Anna said...

I agree that a teenage girl sending photos to her boyfriend is a different category. I'd have to question how Handbasket's husband got hold of such images without violating someone's trust though.

However, you are not correct in saying that current laws drive evidence of child pornography underground. Every police agency has officers dedicated to following trails of photos. It is a sickening job, but they do find the people who take the photos and arrest them. They can also find the people who download these photos. While the Internet has made it easier to distribute images and has desensitised people into thinking they are just pictures, it has also created trails so we can find the people who are making a market for this vile business.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say you'd "rather have those images more easily seen". How does distributing pornography more widely help the assaulted child?